DEC  12  1974  ' 


BV  650  .S82  1850 
Stevens,  Abel,  1815-1897. 
An  essay  on  church  polity 


AN   ESSAY 

ON 

CHURCH    POLITY 

arom|jreI)enbing  an  (IDittlinc 

OF  THE 

CONTROVERSY  ON  ECCLESIASTICAL  GOVERNMENT, 
A  VINDICATION 


THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  SYSTEM  OF  THE  METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


BY  REV.  ABEL^STEVENS,  A.  M. 


GEORGE    PECK,    EDITOR. 

PUBLISHED  BY  LANE  &  SCOTT 

200  Mulberry-street. 

JOSEPH   LONGKING,   PRINTER. 

1850. 


Entered  according  to  Xct  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1847, 

by  G.  Lane  and  C.  B.  Tippett, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of 

New-York. 


/ 


PREFACE 


During  the  late  secession  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  the  northern  states,  the  writer 
of  the  ensuing  pages  was  compelled,  by  his  official 
position,  to  defend  our  church  government  against 
the  misrepresentations  of  the  seceders.  He  issued 
two  "Tracts  for  the  Times,"  which  received  the 
approval  of  the  Journals,  and  some  of  the  higher 
authorities  of  the  church.  He  also  delivered  public 
lectures  in  several  places  on  the  subject.  These 
labors  led  to  the  request,  from  various  quarters,  ac- 
companied by  resolutions  from  quarterly  conferences, 
that  the  substance  of  the  tracts  and  lectures  should  be 
formed  into  a  convenient  volume  for  circulation  among 
our  people. 

The  practical  working  of  our  system,  though  singu- 
larly useful,  frequently  interferes  with  local  feelings, 
and  is  occasionally  opposed  by  individual  societies, 
especially  when  the  annual  appointments  may  not  be 
satisfactory  to  them.  Much  of  this  dissatisfaction 
would  be  prevented  by  a  better  understanding  of  the 
system ;  but  we  have  no  popular  work  expounding  it, 
none  of  any  kind  indeed,  not  out  of  print,  that  treats 


4  PREFACE. 

on  the  chief,  popular  difficulties  connected  with  it, 
namely,  the  absence  of  lay  representation,  the  autho- 
rity of  the  appointing  power,  the  relative  control  of 
the  system  by  the  ministry  and  people,  &c.,  &c. 
Such  a  work  is,  unquestionably,  a  desideratum.  The 
present  volume  is  an  attempt  to  provide  it.  The 
Third  Part  is  especially  devoted  to  these  questions. 

It  was  suggested  to  the  author  that  the  plan  of  the 
volume  might  be  advantageously  extended,  and  made 
to  comprehend  the  outline  of  the  course  of  study  on 
church  polity,  required  of  candidates  for  membership 
in  our  conferences.  This  has  been  attempted.  Can- 
didates are  now  under  the  necessity  of  studying  a 
variety  of  elaborate  works  in  their  preparation  for 
examination.  It  is  not  designed  to  supersede  these 
works ;  they  should  be  retained  not  only  as  standards 
for  thorough  study,  but  for  constant  reference.  But 
they  are,  certainly,  too  numerous  and  too  extensive 
for  the  purpose  of  conference  examinations,  especially 
while  our  course  of  study  is  otherwise  so  large  as  it  is  at 
present.  A  brief,  but  comprehensive,  text-book,  com- 
prising an  outline  of  the  whole  subject,  it  is  believed, 
would  be  highly  acceptable  to  both  the  candidates  and 
committees. 

In  giving  the  volume  this  adaptation,  the  following 
departments  have  been  adopted: — 

I.  An  outline  of  the  controversy  on  church  govern- 
ment in   general,  presenting  the  views  of  our  own 


PREFACE.  5 

church  on  the  subject,  and  the  authorities  which  sup- 
port them. 

II.  A  discussion  of  the  origin  of  our  own  system  in 
particular,  correcting  the  misrepresentations  of  se- 
ceders  and  Protestant  Episcopalians  respecting  it. 

III.  An  examination  of  the  structure  of  our  system, 
explaining  and  defending  its  chief  features,  such  as  its 
itinerancy,  its  episcopacy,  and  its  popular  checks. 
This  department  does  not  include  a  description  of  our 
economy  in  detail ;  such  a  description  is  unnecessary, 
as  it  is  found  entire  and  at  hand  in  the  book  of  Discipline. 

On  the  first  of  these  departments  we  have  several 
elaborate  standards,  namely,  Lord  King,  Powell, 
Emory's  Episcopal  Controversy — a  valuable  frag- 
ment, though  chiefly  extracted  from  Dr.  Campbell — 
and  Bangs'  Original  Church,  in  part — the  best  work 
given  by  its  venerable  author  to  our  literature.  In 
the  second  department,  we  have  Emory's  Defense  of 
our  Fathers,  a  controversial  pamphlet  of  decisive 
ability,  but  relating  to  a  temporary  agitation,  and 
abounding  in  contemporary  references;  a  portion  of 
Bangs'  Original  Church  may  also  be  referred  to  the 
same  department.  In  the  third,  and  most  important 
department,  we  have  not,  so  far  as  the  author  can 
recollect,  any  work  whatever.  In  the  controversies 
of  1828,  Dr.  Bond  published  an  able  pamphlet  on 
lay  representation,  from  which  valuable  quotations 
are  made  in  a  section  of  the  present  volume ;  "  The 


6  PREFACE. 

Itinerant,"  of  that  day,  contained  some  excellent 
es3ays  on  the  composition  of  our  system ;  Dr.  Emory 
also  discussed  the  subject  in  the  Methodist  Magazine 
at  the  time :  but  these  publications  were  temporarjV 
and  are  now  out  of  print.  We  are  constantly,  how- 
ever, reminded  of  the  necessity  of  some  such  expo- 
sition of  our  ecclesiastical  economy,  by  the  misrepre- 
sentations circulated  against  us,  and,  occasionally,  by 
the  disturbance  of  our  churches. 

As  the  first  part  of  the  work  depends  almost  ex- 
clusively on  historical  and  traditional  testimonies,  and 
these  are  numerous  enough  to  fill  volumes,  a  selection 
of  the  best  has  been  made,  and  minute  references 
given,  both  to  verify  the  quotations  and  aid  the  further 
inquiries  of  the  reader. 


i 


CONTENTS. 


PART  I. 

ON  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT   IN  GENERAL. 

Chapter  I. — No  particular  form  of  church  government  pre- 
scribed in  the  Scriptures Page       9 

Chapter  II. — Government  of  the  primitive  church'     .         .     19 
Chapter  III. — The  apostolate  temporary  .         .         .         .25 

Chapter  IV. — The  government  of  the  church  copied  from 
the  synagogue        ........     36 

Chapter  V. — Identity  in  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters    .     45 
Chapter  VI. — The  apostolic  succession    .         .         .         .62 

Chapter  VII. — The  office  of  deacon  .         .         .         .78 

PART  11. 

GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 
ITS  ORIGIN. 

Chapter  I. — Origin  of  the  Methodist  economy  .         .         .83 
Chapter  II. — Origin  of  the  Methodist  episcopacy  in  par- 
ticular  89 

PART  III. 

GOVERNMENT  OP  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 
ITS  STRUCTURE. 

Chapter  I. — Absence  of  lay  representation        .         .         .  113 

Chapter  II. — Itinerancy 138 

Chapter  III. — Episcopacy — The  appointing  power  .  .  156 
Chapter  IV. — Checks  on  the  system  ....  161 
Chapter  V. — Objections  to,  and  dangers  of,  the  itinerancy  172 
Chapter  VI. — Importance  of  the  presiding  eldership  .  188 

Chapter  VII. — Methodism  a  special  system      .         .         .  193 


AN  ESSAY  ON  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 


PART  I. 

CHURCH  GOVERNMENT  IN  GENERAL. 


i-  2-  3 
CHAPTER  I. 

NO  PARTICULAR  FORM  PRESCRIBED  IN  THE  SCRIPTURES. 

Opmion  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — Testimonies  of 
Emory,  Bangs,  Watson,  Wesley — Confirmed  by  the  opinions  of 
Stillingfleet,  Cranmer,  and  other  authorities — Remarks. 

Methodists  believe,  jSjenerally,  that  no  •particular 
form  of  ecclesiastical  polity  is  of  divine  prescription, 
and  that)  therefore,  the  mode  of  governing  the  church 
is  left  to  its  own  discretion  and  the  exigencies  of  time 
and  place.  Bishop  Emory  says,  (quoting  substantially 
the  language  of  Dr.  Campbell,)  "That  no  form  ofj 
polity  can  plead  such  an  exclusive  charter  as  that' 
phrase,  \divine  right,"]  in  its  present  acceptation,  is 
understood  to  imply ;  that  the  claim  is  clearly  the  oflT- 
spring  of  sectarian  bigotry  and  ignorance.  This  we 
may  say  with  freedom,  that  if  a  particular  form  of 
polity  had  been  essential  to  the  church,  it  would  have 
been  laid  do^vn  in  a  different  manner  in  the  sacred 
books." — Epis.  Con,,  p.  41.  A^ain :  "  The  vexed  ques- 
tion respecting  the  original  form  of  government  in  the 
Christian  church,  though  not  unimportant,  is  certainly  of 
no  such  consequence  as  heated  disputants  on  any  side, 
1* 


10  cnuRcn  government. 

misled  by  party  prejudices  or  intemperate  zeal,  would 
affect  to  miike  it.  The  declaration  of  St.  Paul,  that  'the 
kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink,  l)ut  riglitcous- 
ness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,'  is  applicable 
alike  to  everything  external  and  circumstantial ;  and 
it  may  be  confidently  added,  as  the  apostle  continues, 
'  for  he  that  in  these  things  serveth  Christ  is  accepta- 
ble to  God  and  approved  of  men.'  But  it  may  be  said 
that  the  form  of  polity  is  not  a  thing  external  or  cir- 
cumstantial, but  of  the  very  essence  of  a  true  church. 
No  one  has  ever  yet  produced,  or  can  produce,  a  single 
passage  of  Scripture  which  plainly  teaches  this  doc- 
trine,— a  thing  most  marvelous  indeed  if  the  doctrine 
be  true.  Now,  that  no  such  thing  can  be  proved /rowi 
Scrijyture,  many  of  the  very  ablest  writers  on  the  epis- 
copal side  have  over  and  over  admitted.  The  cele- 
^%^^  224}I£ilj  ^^^  very  champion  of  the  highest  order 
of  high  church,  in  the  case  of  the  non-juring  bishops, 
in  the  reign  of  William  III.,  concedes  that  all  the  rea- 
soning  from  which  men  conclude  that  the  whole  model 
of  ecclesiastical  discipline  may  be  extracted  from  the 
yrritings  of  the  New  Testament  is  quite  precarious; 
that  there  is  no  passage  of  any  sacred  writer  wluch 
openly  professes  this  design ;  thariEcreTs  not  "one 
which  so  treats  of  ecclesiastical  government  as  if  the 
writer,  or  the  wiTter's  author,  the  Holy  Spirit,  had 
intended  to  describe  any  one  form  of  polity  as  being  to 
remain  everywhere  and  for  ever  inviolate.  If  all  this 
be  so,  as  every  one  who  reads  the  Bible  can  see  for  him- 
self, '  what  can  we  conclude,'  adds  Dr.  Campbell,  '  but 
that  it  was  mtended  by  the  Holy  Spirit  thus  to  teach  us 
to  distinguish  between  what  is  essential  to  the  Christian 
religion,  [and  a  true  church,]  and  what  is  compara- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  11 

lively  circmnstajitial,  regarding  external  order  and  dis- 
cipline, whicli,  as  matters  of  expedience,  alter  with 
circumstances,  and  are  therefore  left  to  the  adjustment] 
of  human  prudence?'"  Again :  "That  any  specific] 
form  of  church  government,  or  mode  of  authenticating 
ministers,  is  not  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church,  as 
to  the  validity  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  ordmances, 
I  take  to  be  plainly  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England,  if  her  twenty-third  article  be  not  framed  in 
language  designedly  ambiguous  and  deceptive,  which 
ought  not  to  be  supposed." — Epis.  Con.,  app.  ii. 

Dr.  Bano^s  says:  " No  specific  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment is  prescribed  in  Scripture,  and  therefore  it  is 
left  to  the  discretion  of  the  church  to  regulate  these 
matters  as  the  exigencies  of  time,  place,  and  circum- 
stances shall  dictate  to  be  most  expedient,  and  likely  to 
accomplish  the  greatest  amount  of  good ;  always  avoid- 
ing any  and  everything  which  God  has  prohibited." — 
Orig.  Ch.,  No.  xiii. 

Watson,  adopting  the  language  of  Bishop  Tomline, 
says :  "  As  it  has  not  pleased  our  almighty  Father  to 
prescribe  any  particular  form  of  civil  government  for 
the  security  of  temporal  comforts  to  his  rational  crea- 
tures, so  neither  has  he  prescribed  any  particular  form 
of  ecclesiastical  polity  as  absolutely  necessaiy  to  the 
attainment  of  eternal  happmess.  Thus  the  gospel  only 
lays  down  general  principles,  and  leaves  the  application 
of  them  to  men  as  free  agents." — Th.  Inst.,  vol.  ii, 
p.  585. 

Finally,  Wesley  himself  says :  "  As  to  my  own  judg- 
ment, I  still  beheve  the  episcopal  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment to  be  Scriptural  and  apostolical.  I  mean, 
well  agreemg  with  the  practice  and  writings  of  the 


12  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

apostles.  But  that  it  is  prescribed  in  Scripture,  I  do 
not  believe.  This  opinion,  which  I  once  zealously 
espoused,  I  have  been  heartily  ashamed  of  ever  since 
I  read  Bishop  Stillinfrflcet's  Ircnicum.  I  think  he  has 
unanswerably  proved  that  neither  Christ  nor  his  apos- 
tles prescribe  any  particular  form  of  church  government^ 
and  that  the  plea  of  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy  was 
never  heard  of  in  the  primitive  church." — Letter  to 
Clarke^  Works,  vol.  vii,  p.  285. 

In  tliis  opinion  we  are  su.stained  by  niany  eminent 
authorities  in  other  sections  of  the  church.  Bishop 
Stillingfleet,  in  his  celebrated  Irenicum,  denies  ex- 
plicitly that  there  is  any  particular  form  of  church 
government  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures.  The  very 
heading  of  his  first  chapter  embraces  the  following 
sentences :  "  Things  necessary  for  the  church's  peace 
feiust  be  clearly  revealed.  The  form  of  church  govem- 
'  ment  is  not  so,  as  appears  by  the  remaining  controversy 
about  it.  All  evidence  thence  that  Clirist  never  in- 
tended any  one  form  as  the  only  means  to  peace  in  the 
church."  In  chapter  vi,  part  2,  he  discusses  the  ques- 
tion at  length.  The  heading  of  the  chapter  includes 
these  sentences:  "Wliether  Christ  hath  determined 
the  form  of  government  by  any  positive  laws.  Argu- 
ments of  the  necessity  why  Christ  must  determine  it 
largely  answered;  as,  first,  Chinst's  faithfulness  com- 
pared with  Moses,  answered  and  retorted,  and  thence 
proved,  that  Christ  did  not  institute  any  foim  of  gov- 
ernment in  the  church  because  he  gave  no  such  law 
for  it  as  Moses  did,  and  we  have  nothing  but  general 
rules  which  are  applicable  to  several  forms  of  govern- 
ment." In  chapter  viii,  part  2,  he  gives  us  the  opinion 
of  reformed  divines  "  concerning  the  unalterable  divine 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  13 

right  of  particular  forms  of  churcli  government,  where- 
in it  is  made  to  appear  that  the  most  eminent  divines 
of  the  Reformation  did  never  conceive  any  one  form 
necessary ;  manifested  by  three  arguments.  1.  From 
the  judgment  of  those  who  make  the  form  of  church 
government  mutable,  and  to  depend  upon  the  wisdom 
of  the  magistrate  and  church.  This  cleared  to  have 
been  the  judgment  of  most  divines  of  the  Church  of 
England  since  the  Reformation."  He  places  among 
these  divines  Archbishop  Cranmer,  with  others  of  the 
Reformation  in  Edward  the  Sixth's  time ;  Archbishop 
Whitgift,  Bishop  Bridges,  Dr.  Low,  Mr.  Hooker,  in 
King  James's  time;  the  king  himself.  Dr.  Sutcliffe, 
Mr.  Hales,  Mr.  Chillingworth,  Chemnitius,  Zanchy, 
Peter  Moulin,  Fugevil,  Blondell,  Bochartus,  Amy- 
raldus,  and,  among  other  learned  men,  Grotius  and 
Lord  Bacon.  "2.  Those  who  look  upon  equamy  as 
the  primitive  form,  yet  judge  e^iscopacyjawful.  Au- 
gustine Confession,  Melancthon,  Articuli  Smalcaldici, 
prmce  of  Anhalt,  Hyperius,  Hemingius,  the  practice 
of  most  foreign  churches,  Calvin  and  Beza,  both  ap- 
proving episcopacy  and  diocesan  churches,  Sahnasius, 
&c.  3.  Those  who  judge  episcopacy  to  be  the  primi- 
tive form,  yet  look  not  on  it  as  necessary.  Bishop 
Jewel,  Fulk,  Field,  Bishop  Downam,  Bishop  Bancroft, 
Bishop  Marton,  Bishop  Andrews,  Saravia,  Francis 
Mason,  and  others." 

Stillingfleet  {Iren.,  pp.  413-416)  gives  us  Cranmer's 
answers  to  questions  proposed  "  by  the  clergy  of  the  low- 
er house  of  convocation"  to  that  illustrious  martyr,  "  and 
the  residue  of  the  prelates  of  the  higher  house."  Among 
these  questions  and  answers  are  the  following : — 

"  Whether,  in  the  New  Testament,  be  required  any 


14  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

consecration  of  a  bishop  or  priest,  or  oneley  appoint- 
eingc  to  the  ofTice  be  sufficient  ? 

"  A.  In  the  New  Testament,  he  that  is  appointed  to 
be  a  bishop  or  a  priest  needeth  no  consecration  by 
the  Scripture;  for  election  or  appointeing  thereto  is 
sufficient. 

"  Whether  (if  it  fortuned  a  prince  Christian  lerned, 
to  conquer  certen  domynyons  of  infidells,  having  non 
but  the  temporall  lerned  men  with  him)  it  be  defended 
by  God's  law  that  he  and  they  should  prcche  and  teche 
the  word  of  God  there  or  no,  and  also  make  and  con- 
stitute priests  or  noe  ? 

"  A.  It  is  not  against  God's  law,  but  contrary  they 
ought  indede  so  to  doe;  and  there  be  hystoryes  that 
witnesseth  that  some  Christian  priices  and  other  lay 
men  unconsccrate  have  done  the  same. 

'•  "\Miether  it  be  forefended  by  God's  law,  that  if  it 
so  fortuned  that  all  the  bishops  and  priests  were  dedde, 
and  that  the  word  of  God  should  there  unpreached, 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  and  others  unministred,  that 
the  king  of  that  country  shoulde  make  bishops  and 
priests  to  supply  the  same  or  noe  ? 

"  A.  It  is  not  forbidden  by  God's  law." 

"Thus  far,"  says  Stillingfleet,  "that  excellent  per- 
son, in  whose  judgment  nothing  is  more  clear,  than  his 
ascribing  the  particular  form  of  government  in  the 
church  to  the  determination  of  the  supreme  magistrate." 

Archbishop  Whitgift,  "a  sage  and  prudent  person, 
whom  we  cannot  suppose  either  ignorant  of  the  sense 
of  the  Church  of  England,  or  afraid  or  unwilling  to 
defend  it,"  says  Stillingfleet,  asserts  that  "  the  form  of 
discipline  is  not  particularly,  and  by  name,  set  down 
in  Scripture ;  no  kind  of  government  is  expressed  in 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  15 

the  word,  or  can  necessarily  be  concluded  from  thence ; 
no  form  of  church  government  is,  by  the  Scriptures, 
prescribed  to,  or  commanded,  the  church  of  God." — 
Iren.,  p.  416. 

Dr.  Low  says,  "  No  certain  form  of  government  is 
prescribed  in  the  word,  only  general  rules  laid  down 
for  it." — Iren..f  p.  417.  Bishop  Bridtres  declares,  "  God 
hath  not  expressed  the  form  of  church  government,  at 
least  not  so  as  to  bind  us  to  it." — Iren.,  p.  417. 

"They  who  please  to  consult,"  says  Stillingfleet, 
"the  third  book  of  the  learned  and  judicious  Hooker's 
Ecclesiastical  Fohty,  may  see  the  mutability  of  the  form 
of  church  government  largely  asserted  and  fully  proved. 
Yea,  this  is  so  plain  and  evident  to  have  been  the  chief 
opinion  of  the  divmes  of  the  Church  of  England,  that 
Parker  [a  Puritan  author]  looks  on  it  as  one  of  the 
main  foundations  of  the  hierarchy,  and  sets  himself, 
might  and  main,  to  opposite  it,  but  with  what  success 
we  have  already  seen.  If  we  come  lower,  to  the  time 
of  King  James,  his  majesty  himself  declared  it  in  print, 
as  his  judgment,  '  It  is  granted  to  every  Christian  king, 
prince,  and  commonwealth,  to  prescribe,  within  its  o^vn 
jurisdiction,  that  external  form  of  church  government 
which  approaches  as  much  as  possible  to  its  own  form 
of  civil  administration.' " — Iren.,  p.  417. 

In  Tract  No.  8  of  the  Oxford  series  the  author  re- 
marks, "  There  is  no  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  system 
which  is  not  faintly  traced  in  Scripture,  and  no  part 
which  is  much  more  than  faintly  traced."  Again,  in 
No.  85,  it  is  said,  "  Every  one  must  allow  that  there  is 
next  to  nothing  on  the  surface  of  Scripture  about 
them,"  (referring  to  episcopacy,  succession,  the  power 
of  the  church,  &c.,)  "and  very  little,  even  under  the 


16  CllUUCn  GOVERNMENT. 

surface,  of  a  satisfactory  character."  Dodwcll  admits 
the  same  thing  when  he  says,  "  They  (that  is,  the  sacred 
writers)  nowhere  professedly  explain  the  offices  or 
ministries  themselves,  as  to  their  nature  or  extent, 
which  surely  they  would  have  done  if  any  particulai* 
form  had  been  prescribed  for  pci-petual  duration." — 
Poivell,  p.  26. 

Bishop  Beverid<ye  says,  ^^  Nothing  can  he  determined 
from  what  the  apostles  did  in  their  early  proceedings, 
in  preaching  the  gospel,  as  to  the  establishment  of  any 
certain  form  of  church  government." — Powell,  p.  27. 

Bishop  Tomline^  says,  "Though  I  flatter  myself 
that  I  have  proved  episcopacy  to  be  an  apostoHcal 
institution,  yet  I  readily  acknowledge  that  there  is  no 
precept  in  the  New  Testament  which  commands  that 
every  church  should  be  governed  by  bishops." 

Neander,  the  best  living  authority  in  church  anti- 
quities, asserts,  "  Neither  Christ  nor  the  apostles  have 
given  any  unchangeable  law  on  the  subject.  Where 
two  or  three  arc  gathered  together  in  my  name,  says 
Christ,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.  This  coming 
together  in  his  name,  he  assures  us,  alone  renders  the 
assembly  well  pleasing  in  his  sight,  whatever  be  the 
different  forms  of  government  under  which  his  people 
meet." — Int.  to  Coleman's  Prim.  Ch.,  p.  15. 

Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover,  declares,  "I  am  far  from 
intending  to  signify,  that  Christians  in  different  places, 
or  in  the  same  place,  are  absolutely  bound  in  duty  to 
adopt  the  very  same  forms  of  ecclesiastical  order." — 
Lcc.  on  CJi.  Gov.,  p.  6. 

This  view  of  the  subject  was  substantially  enter- 
tained by  the  venerable  Dr.  White,  late  senior  bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal   Church  in  the  United 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  17 

States,  and,  as  he  asserts,  by  "  the  great  body  of  the 
Episcopalians  in  America"  in  his  day.  "Even  those 
who  hold  episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right,"  he  says, 
"  conceive  the  obUgation  to  it  to  be  not  binding  when 
that  idea  would  be  destructive  of  public  worship." 
"Much  more,"  he  justly  continues,  "must  they  think 
so  who  indeed  venerate  and  prefer  that  form  as  the 
most  ancient  and  eligible,  but  without  any  idea  of 
divine  right  in  the  case."  "This,"  he  adds,  "the 
author  believes  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body 
of  Episcopalians  in  America,  in  which  respect  they 
have  in  their  favor,  unquestionably,  the  sense  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and,  as  he  believes,  the  opinions 
of  her  most  distinguished  prelates,  for  piety,  virtue, 
and  abilities."* 

The  position  thus  supported  by  g;ood  authority,  is 
sustained  also  by  sound  reason. 

1.  It  is  obvious  that  there  can  be  no  intrinsic  im- 
I)ortance  in  any  one  form  of  church  polity,  rather  than 
another,  to  justify  its  exclusive  appointment  without 
respect  to  times,  places,  or  circumstances.  Funda- 
mental  doctrines  and  morals  must,  from  their  essential 
nature,  be  positive,  but  not  so  the  mere  ceremonial 
offices  and  economical  arrangements  of  the  church. 

2.  The  positive  authority  of  such  "offices"  and 
"  arrangements "  would  be  a  formidable  interference 
with  the  success  of  the  ^*  weightier  matters  of  the  law," 
in  many  instances.  The  history  of  the  church  abounds 
in  examples  of  this  remark.     It  has  repeatedly  been 

*  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  &c., 
p.  25.  Bishop  White,  in  his  Memoirs  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  fifty-three  years  afterward,  says  he  sees  no  cause 
to  retract  the  leading  sentiments  of  this  pamphlet. 


18  CnURCII   GOVERNMENT. 

necessary,  in  order  to  maintain  the  purity  of  doctrines 

and  morals,  for  the  subordinate  clerj]^  or  tlie  people 
to  break  away  from  the  control  of  authorities  declared 
to  be  essential  by  the  advocates  of  a  positive  eccle- 
siastical system.  Had  not  Wesley  deviated  from  the 
government  of  the  Anglican  Church  in  his  ordination 
of  an  American  bishoji,  the  American  Methodist  so- 
cieties would  have  been  rent  into  factions,  and  the 
sacraments  administered  without  ordination.  God  has 
sanctioned  that  deviation  by  crowning  it  with  his 
blessing,  and  following  it  with  results  unequaled  in 
the  contemporary  history  of  the  church.  The  differ- 
ences of  civil  governments,  and  national  sentiments 
and  customs,  must  seriously  interfere  with  the  progress 
of  Christianity,  if  such  modifications  of  its  mere  eco- 
nomical system  be  inadmissible. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  divine  right,  in  matters  of  church 
polity,  attaches  to  those  matters  an  importance  which 
is  contrary  to  the  genius  of  Christianity,  and  is  of  per- 
nicious tendency.  It  is  the  foundation  of  priestly 
pride  and  usuq)ation,  and  of  most  mortifying  unchari- 
tableness  toward  all  who  dissent  from  it.  Its  adherents 
arrogantly  consider  themselves  the  exclusive  church 

,  of  Christ.  They  shut  out  from  their  pulpits  all  other 
Jclergymen,  however  distinguished  by  piety,  ability, 
\and  usefulness.  It  has  led  to  a  preposterous  estimate 
of  mere  ceremonies  and  external  usages,  and  created 
controversies,  which,  however  excusable  in  the  dark 
,  ages,  are  a  disgrace  to  our  century,  and  the  ridicule 
/of  practical  and  sensible  men. 

4.  In  addition  to  these  considerations  we  have  the 
decisive^  fact,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  do  not  contain 
a  single  injunction  respecting  the   form  of  church 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  19 

government.  They  state  the  general  principles  of 
moral  discipline;  but,  as  we  have  shown  by  many 
high  Episcopal  authorities,  they  nowhere  prescribe  the 
forms  and  gradations  of  ecclesiastical  offices.  How 
absurd,  then,  in  this  age  of  light  and  practical  senti- 
ments, is  the  assumption  of  divine  authority  for  a  par- 
ticular system,  and  its  erection  into  a  barrier,  by  which 
most  of  the  Protestants  of  Christendom  are  precluded 
from  the  "  true  church  ?" 


/-  1-  3 
CHAPTER  n. 

PRIMITIVE  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

Propositions  deduced  from  ecclesiastical  history — Most  of  the 
first  offices  of  the  church  temporary — Scriptural  evidence — Wat- 
son's opinion. 

The  position  so  amply  sustained  by  good  authori- 
ties in  the  preceding  chapter,  namely,  that  though  the 
principles  of  moral  discipline  are  fully  prescribed  in 
the  Scriptures,  yet  the  particular  forms  of  ecclesiastical 
government  are  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  church 
and  the  exigency  of  circumstances,  must,  we  think,  be 
obvious  to  all  impartial  readers  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  history  of  the  government  of  the  primitive  church 
further  confirms  it.  The  history  of  the  early  Christians 
presents  the  following  facts  : — 

1.  That  in  the  beginning  no  systematic  government 
existed  in  the  church ;  it  was  a  period  of  persecution 
and  dispersion.  Many  offices  were  providentially 
created  by  the  emergencies  of  the  time,  and  disap- 
peared with  those  emergencies,  and  acts  were  allowed, 


20  CnURCII   GOVERNMENT. 

and  necessary,  in  individual  and  lay  members,  which 
could  not  consist  with  an  organized  government. 

2.  It  was  soon  found  necessary  to  consolidate  the 
clmrcli  by  a  more  systematic  economy.  It  adopted 
the  one  nearest  at  hand  and  most  convenient,  namely, 
the  conventional  system  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  not 
the  divinely  appointed  one  of  the  temple.  It  thus 
derived  from  the  synagogue  its  orders  of  presbyter 
and  deacon. 

3.  That  on  the  disappearance  of  the  first  and  tem- 
porally offices,  which  were  created  by  the  earliest 
emergencies  of  the  church,  the  two  orders  of  presby- 
ters or  bishops,  and  deacons,  were  the  only  ones  re- 
cognized as  permanently  estabhshed,  presbyters  and 
bishops  being  identical  in  order.* 

*  Let  us  not  be  understood  to  say,  that  the  two  orders  ol 
presbyters  and  deacons  were  permanently  appointed  by  divine 
authority.  They  were  copied,  we  have  said,  from  the  synagogue, 
and  merely  because  they  were  found  convenient.  If  any  section 
of  the  church  should  find  these  orders,  or  any  other  arrangements 
of  church  polity,  incompatible  with  its  circumstances,  it  can 
dispense  with  them,  and  assume  any  arrangement  whatever 
which  will  secure  its  prosperity,  and  not  interfere  with  the  word 
of  God.  This  remark  is  due  to  our  "Wesleyan  brethren,  who 
have  but  one  order — that  of  presbyters  ;  and  who,  until  lately, 
have  not  practiced  the  usual  services  of  ordination.  Anti-pre- 
latical  writers  have  lost  much  of  the  weight  of  their  arguments 
by  conceding  too  much,  and  by  seeming  to  assume,  that  though 
episcopacy,  as  a  distinct  order,  is  not  of  divine  right,  yet  the 
orders  of  presbyters  and  deacons  are.  In  fine,  though  govern- 
ment is  essential  to  the  church,  there  is  no  particular  form  of 
divine  authority,  and  there  is  scarcely  a  greater  insult  to  the 
common  sense  of  the  age,  or  a  greater  provocation  of  the  scorn 
of  thinking  men,  than  the  belabored  controversies  and  arrogant 
assumptions  which   the  question  has  occasioned.     It  may  be 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  21 

4.  That  on  the  increase  of  congregations  in  the 
same  place,  and  the  consequent  increase  of  pastors  or 
bishops  there,  one  of  the  bishops  being  selected  to 
preside  in  the  occasional  consultations  of  the  pastors, 
became  thus  gradually  possessed  of  the  general  over- 
sight of  the  local  churches,  and  in  time,  the  name 
designating  the  pastoral  oversight,  and  applied  before 
to  all  the  pastors,  namely,  episcopos  or  bishop,  was 
exclusively  appropriated  to  him.  In  further  time, 
this  superintendency  extended  to  the  neighboring 
districts,  and  at  last,  with  the  growth  of  the  church 
in  numbers  and  wealth,  the  adventitious  dignities  and 
innumerable  corruptions  of  diocesan,  metropolitan, 
patriarchal,  and  papal  episcopacy  were  introduced. 

Let  us  examine  these  propositions  more  in  detail. 
It  is  evident  that  several  of  the  offices  of  the  primi- 
tive church  were  temporary,  from  the  description 
which  the  Scriptures  give  of  them.  In  1  Cor.  xii,  28, 
we  have  a  minute  catalogue  of  them.  "  God  hath  set 
some  in  the  church — first,  apostles ;  secondarily,  pro- 
phets; thirdly,  teachers;  after  that,  miracles;  then 
gifts  of  healing,  helps,  governments,  diversities  of 
tongues."  We  have  here  eight  different  sorts  of  spi- 
ritual men;  and  by  comparing  this  verse  with  the 
tenth,  we  may,  perhaps,  add  two  more — those  pos- 
sessing the  power  of  discerning  spirits  and  of  inter- 
preting tongues.  But  no  one,  it  is  presumed,  will]  ''^  '*^ 
aver,  that  the  apostle  is  here  describing  the  ordinary^ 
and  permanent  officers  of  a  Christian  church.  He  is 
evidently   speaking   of   the    supernatural   gifts   and 

asked,  then,  why  we  discuss  it  1  We  answer,  to  show  its  folly, 
and  dissipate,  if  possible,  some  of  the  preposterous  fables  asso- 
ciated with  it. 


22  CUURCII   GOVERNMENT. 

graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of- the  persons  en- 
dowed with  these  several  gifts  and  qualifications 
for  usefulness.  Compare  verses  1-11.  (See  Panchard't 
View,  p.  71.) 

St.  Paul  gives  another  enumeration  of  them  in  Eph. 
iv,  12:  "lie  gave  some  apostles,  and  some  prophets, 
and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers ; 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints ;  for  the  work  of  the 
ministry;  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ." 
A  sensible  writer  remarks  as  follows  on  this  passage : 
"  This  passage  seems  to  imply,  that  the  several  reli- 
gious teachers  here  named  are  essential  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  great  work  for  wliich  Chi-ist  came 
into  the  world ;  and  that  the  church  will  always  need, 
and  should  always  have,  these  instrumentalities.  This 
may  be  true,  and  yet  it  may  not  be  true  that  the 
church  should  always  have  living  teachers  answering 
to  the  four  or  five  kinds  above  named.  Indeed,  from 
the  very  character  of  some  of  these  teachers,  it  is 
a  settled  point  that  the  church  cannot  have  them  as 
permanent  officers:  I  refer  particularly  to  apostles 
and  prophets.  I  know  not  that  anybody  pretends 
that  there  should  be  an  order  of  prophets  in  our 
churches.  Inspkation  being  indispensable  to  the 
prophetic  office,  prophets,  of  necessity,  cease  to 
exist  so  soon  as  the  gift  of  inspiration  is  withdrawn. 
Still,  the  labors  of  prophets  were  essential  to  the 
establishment  of  Christianity,  and  their  recorded 
predictions  will  be  of  great  value  to  the  church 
in  all  periods  of  her  existence." — Punchard,  part  ii, 
p.  70. 

Watson  remarks  on  the  passage  in  Eph.  iv,  11: 
"  Of  these,  the  office  of  apostle  is  allowed  by  all  to 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  23 

have  been  confined  to  those  immediately  commis- 
sioned by  Christ  to  witness  the  fact  of  his  miracles 
and  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  to  reveal 
the  complete  system  of  Christian  doctrine  and  duty ; 
confirming  their  extraordinary  mission  by  miracles 
wrought  by  themselves."  This  is  not  admitted  by 
all;  but,  nevertheless,  as  we  shall  endeavor  to  show, 
is  the  true  doctrine.  "If,"  continues  Mr.  Watson, 
"by  *  prophets'  we  are  to  understand  persons  who 
foretold  future  events,  then  the  office  was,  from  its 
very  nature,  extraordinary,  and  the  gift  of  prophecy 
has  passed  away  with  the  other  miraculous  endow- 
ments of  the  first  age  of  Christianity.  If,  with  others, 
we  understand  that  these  prophets  were  extraordinary 
teachers,  raised  up  until  the  churches  were  settled 
unde^  permanent  qualified  instructors,  still  the  office 
was  temporary.  The  'evangelists'  are  generally 
understood  to  be  assistants  of  the  apostles,  who  acted 
under  their  especial  authority  and  direction.  Of  this 
number  were  Timothy  and  Titus ;  and  as  the  apostle 
Paul  directed  them  to  ordain  bishops  or  presbyters  in 
the  several  churches,  but  gave  them  no  authority  to 
ordain  successors  to  themselves  in  their  particular 
office  as  evangelists,  it  is  clear  that  the  evangelists 
must  also  be  reckoned  among  the  number  of  extraor- 
dinary and  temporary  ministers  suited  to  the  first  age 
of  Christianity.  Whether  by  'pastors  and  teachers' 
two  offices  be  meant,  or  one,  has  been  disputed.  The 
change  in  the  mode  of  expression  seems  to  favor  the 
latter  view,  and  so  the  text  is  interpreted  by  St.  Je- 
rome and  St.  Augustine ;  but  the  point  is  of  little  con- 
sequence. A  pastor  was  a  teacher,  although  every 
teacher  might  not  be  a  pastor  j  but,  in  many  cases,  be 


24  CIIURCn  GOVERNMENT. 

confined  to  tlic  office  of  subordinate  instruction,  whe- 
ther as  an  expounder  of  doctrine,  a  catechist,  or  even 
a  more  privato  instructor  of  those  who  as  yet  were 
unacquainted  with  the  first  principles  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ.  The  term  'pastor'  implies  the  duties  both  of 
instruction  and  of  government,  of  feeding  and  of  ruling 
the  flock  of  Christ ;  and,  as  the  presbyters  or  bishops 
were  ordained  in  the  several  churches,  both  by  the 
apostles  and  evangelists,  and  rules  are  left  by  vSt.  Paul 
as  to  their  appointment,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that 
these  are  the  '  pastors '  spoken  of  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  and  that  they  were  designed  to  he  the  per- 
manent  ministers  of  the  church ;  and  that  with  them 
both  the  government  of  the  church  and  the  performance 
of  its  leading  religious  services  were  deposited." — In- 
stitutes, vol.  ii,  p.  575. 

Besides  these,  there  was  another  office — that  of 
deaconess ;  which  all  now  admit  to  have  been  tempo- 
rary. Out  of  all  this  list  of  eight,  or  perhaps  eleven, 
original  offices  of  the  church,  we  have  then  but  one 
that  is  permanent,  namely,  the  pastorate,  which,  as 
formed  on  the  model  of  the  synagogue,  was  composed 
of  deacons,  and  presbyters  or  bishops.  And  this  Is 
permanent  solely  because  it  is  the  only  one  in  the 
series  which,  from  the  nature  of  things,  is  necessary 
for  the  instruction  and  discipline  of  the  church.  We 
remark  further,  that  it  Is  permanent  simply  as  a  pasto- 
rate or  general  provision  for  Christian  instruction, 
and  not  in  the  adventitious  modifications  of  deacons 
and  elders.  These,  as  simple,  convenient,  and  of  apos- 
tolic example,  should  doubtless  be  retained  wherever 
practicable,  but  can  be  substituted  by  other  terms  and 
modifications  without  contravening  the  word  of  Grod. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  25 

It  is  believed  that  this  view  of  the  subject  is  univer- 
sally entertained,  except  among  prelatists,  who  assert 
that  the  apostolic  office  is  continued  in  their  episcopacy ; 
but  that  the  apostolate  was  extraordinary  and  tempo- 
rary, is  obvious  from  its  peculiar  endowments  and 
functions,  which  we  shall  consider  in  our  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  ni. 

THE  APOSTOLATE  TEMPORARY. 

The  apostolic  office  temporary — What  was  it  1 — Opinion  of 
Neander — of  Dr.  Woods — of  Barrow — of  Dr.  Campbell — Epis- 
copacy. 

In  the  last  chapter  we  endeavored  to  prove  that 
many  of  the  ecclesiastical  offices  of  the  early  Christians 
were  temporary,  being  founded  on  the  exigencies  of 
the  times.  We  class  the  apostolate  among  these  spe- 
cial offices. 

The  controversy  relates  not  to  the  name,  but  to  the 
qUice^  as  peculiarly  exercised  by  "the  twelve"  whom 
Christ  ajDpointed  as  the  founders  of  the  church.     The 
name  in  the  original   {aTTOGToXoi;,  an  apostle)  sim- 
ply signifies  a  messenger :  in  this  general  sense  it  is 
repeatedly  used  by  the  New  Testament  writers.     Epa-  \ 
phroditus   is   called  ^Hhe  messenger  {a'noGroXov,  the^ 
apostle)  of  the  church  of  Philippi."  Phil,  ii,  25.      Str 
Paul  says,  in  John  xiii,  16,  "  The  servant  is  not  greater  ^ 
than  his  lord:  neither  is  he  that  is  sent  (diTOGroXog, 
upostolos)  greater  than  he  that  sent  him."     2  Cor.  viiijt 
23,  "  Whether  any  do  inquire  of  Titus,  he  is  my  part-)  ^ 
ner  and  fellow-helper  concerning  you  :  or  our  brethren  j 
be  inquired  of,  they  are  the  messengers  (dnoaroXoi,  the] 


26  CIIUKCll   GOVERNMENT. 

apostles)  of  the  cliurclics,  and  tlic  glory  of  Christ." 
But  the  term  is  admitted  by  all  to  be  ajiplied  in  a  dis- 
tinctive sense  to  the  twelve,  designating  their  peculiar 
office  as  special  messengers.  Passing,  then,  the  name, 
the  question  is,  whether  the  office  of  the  twelve  is  con- 
tinued or  not. 

Wlio  is  more  competent  to  answer  this  question  than 
Neander  ?  "•  In  the  ajDostolical  church  there  was  one 
office  whieli  bears  no  resemblance  to  any  other,  and  to 
which  none  can  be  made  to  conform.  This  is  the 
office  of  the  apostles.  They  stand  as  the  medium  of 
communication  between  Christ  and  the  whole  Christian 
church,  to  transmit  his  Avord  and  his  Spirit  through  all 
ages.  In  this  respect  the  church  must  ever  continue 
to  acknowledge  her  dependence  upon  them  and  to  own 
their  rightful  authority.  Their  authority  and  jDower 
can  be  delegated  to  none  other.  But  the  service  which 
the  apostles  themselves  sought  to  confer,  was  to  trans- 
mit to  men  the  word  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  and, 
by  this  means,  to  establish  independent  Clu'istian  com- 
munities."— Int.  to  Coleman's  Prim.  Ch. 

Dr.  WoodSj  of  Ando\  er,  gives  the  following  opinion : 
"  Jesus  chose  twelve  of  his  disciples  to  be  liis  constant 
companions,  to  hear  his  instructions  and  witness,  his 
miracles,  and  thus  to  be  trained  up  for  the  sjiecial  work 
assigned  them.  '  lie  ordained  twelve,'  says  Mark, 
*  that  they  should  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send 
them  forth  to  preach,  and  to  have  power  to  heal  sick- 
nesses and  to  cast  out  devils.'  These  disciples  Jesus 
jinally  commissioned  to  go  forth  as  his  apostles,  and 


(qualified  them  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be 


witnesses  of  his  miracles,  and  particidarly  of  his^resur- 
rectipn,  and  to  be  mfallible  teachers  and  guides.    See 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  27 

Mattliew  xxviii,  19,  20;  Mark  xvi,  15,  16;  Acts  i,  8. 
The  work  to  which  they  were  called  was  a  special  and 
momentous  work.     It  was  the  WC^  of  proclaiming  the  , . 
gospel,}  founding  the  first  churches,  j  establishing  the  2,,  3, 
Christian  religion  by  preaching  and  by  miracles,  [  com-  -<v-, 
pleting  the  volume  of  inspiration,)  and  exercising,  un-  J7 
der  Christ,  a  paramount  authority  in  all  the  concerns 
of  religion.     Their  commission  and  their  endowments 
were  adapted  to  the  peculiar  objects  which  were  then 
to  be  accomplished.     Those  peculiar  objects  having 
been   accomplished,  the   peculiarities   of  their  office 
ceased.     They  were  indeed  religious  teachers,  mmisp 
ters  of  the  gospel ;  and  as^juc/i,  they  have  successors. 
But  they  were  teachers  and  ministers  in  a  peculiar    ; . 
sense,  and  with  peculiar  qualifications,  and  peculiar  ^. 
authority.     Considered  in  this  light  they  have  no  sue-    ^  • 
cessors.     Others  have  been  sent  forth  as  missionaries, 
as  the  word  apostles  literally  signifies.     But  those  first 
Christian   missionaries  were  distinguished  above  aU 
others  ;  and  the  word  apostles,  in  a  high  and  peculiar 
sense,  has  been  appropriated  to  them.     Now  how  does 
the  fact  that  Chi-ist   appointed  the  apostles   to  that 
peculiar  work,  and  distinguished  them  by  their  qualifica- 
tions from  other  ministei^s,  prove  that  one  set  of  minis- 
ters in  after  ages  is  to  fill  an  office  and  possess  qualifi- 
cations above  others?     All  true  ministers  of  Christ 
take  the  place  of  the  apostles  considered  simply  as  gos- 
pel ministers.     But  where  are  the  men  at  the  present 
day^who^  iiiherit  what  was  peculiar  to  the  apostolic 
character  and  office,  or  what  distinguished  the  apostles 
from  other  gospel  ministers^?     The  welfare,  and  even 
the^continuance  of  the  church  requires  that  men,  pro- 
perly qualified,  should,  from  time  to  time,  be  set  apart 


28  CnURCII  aOVERNMENT. 

for  the  work  of  the  ministry ;  and  that  the  ministry 
should  be  a  permanent  institution.  In  this  sense  there 
is  a  succession,  I  do  not  say  an  uninterrupted,  but  a 
real  succession,  from  the  apostles  to  the  present  time. 
But  it  can  no  more  be  proved  that  subsequent  minis- 
ters of  the  gospel  share  the  peculiarities  of  the  apostolic 
ofiice,  than  that  they  share  the  peculiarities  of  the  office 
of  Moses  or  David." — Lee.  on  Ch.  (rot'.,  pp.  14, 15. 

Dr.  Barrow,  an  Episcopalian;  says,  "  The  apostoli- 
cal office,  as  such,  was  personal  and.  temporary  ;  and 
therefore,  according  to  its  nature  and  design,  not  suc- 
cessive or  communicable  to  others,  in  perpetual  descend- 
ence  from  them.     It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects  extra- 
ordinary, conferred  in  a  special  manner,  designed  for 
special  purjDoses,  discharged  by  special  aids,  endowed 
with  special  privileges,  as  was  needful  for  the  propa- 
gation of  Christianity  and  founding  of  churches." — 
Pope's  Supremacy,  sup.  ii,  sec.  4.      Also,  Sup.  i,  arg. 
1,  sec.  13-15.    He  proceeds  to  discriminate  its  extra- 
/     ordinary  powers,  "  an  immediate  designation  and  com- 
i/.  mission  from  God-pe  should  be  able  to  attest  con- 
^,   ceming  our.  Lord's  resurrection  or  ascension-}-to  be 
endowed  with  miraculoua  gifts  and  graces,  to  impart 
•V,  spiritual  gifls-f-his  charge  was  universal  and  indefinite! 
^/7  — the  whole  world  was  his  i^rovincC;  that  by  the  infal- 
lible assistance  of  the  Spirit,  he  could  govern  in  an. 
absolute  manner.     Now  such  an  office,  consisting  of  so 
many  extraordinary  privileges  and  miraculous  powers, 
which  were  requisite  for  the  foundation  of  the  church 
and  the  diffusion  of  Christianity,  against  the  manifold 
difficulties  and  disadvantages  which  it  then  needs  must 
encounter,  was  not  designed  to  continue  hy  derivation; 
for  it  containeth  in  it  divers  things  which  apparently 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  29 

were  not  communicated,  and  which  no  man,  without 
gross  imposture  and  hypocrisy,  could  challenge  to  him- 
self. Neither  did  the  apostles  pretend  to  communicate 
it :  they  did  indeed  appoint  standino;  pastors  and  teach- 
ers in  each  church ;  they  did  assume  fellow-laborers  or 
assistants  in  the  work  of  preaching  and  governance ; 
but  they  did  not  constitute  apostles  equal  to  them- 
selves in  authority,  privileges,  or  gifts  ;  for  '  who  know- 
eth  not,'  saith  St.  Austin. '  that  principate  of  apostleship 
to  be  preferred  before  any  episcopacy?'  'And  the 
bishops/  saith  Bellarmine,  'have  no  part  of  the  true 
apostolical  authority.' "  Barrow  elsewhere  tells  us,  that 
"  the  most  ancient  writers,  living  nearest  to  the  fount- 
ains of  tradition,  do  exclude  the  apostles  from  the  epis- 
copacy," or  "  were  not  assured  in  the  opinion,  that  the 
apostles  were  bishops,  or  that  they  did  not  esteem  them 
bishops  in  the  same  notion  of  others." — Pope's  Supre- 
macy^ sup.  iv. 

Mr.  Punchard  presents  the  following  judicious  views 
on  the  subject:  "That  their  authority  over  others 
was  based,  exclusively,  on  these  ^traqrdinary  and  in- 
communicable^ peculiarities,  seems  to  us  evident  from 
the  usual  form  of  introduction  in  the  epistles,  '  Paul,  a 
servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  he  an  apostle,'  &c. 
'  Peter,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ.'  That  it  was  on 
their  character  as  the  inspired  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ 
that  they  relied  for  authority  over  the  churches,  is 
further  apparent  from  numerous  express  references^ 
to  this  fact :  for  example,  2  Cor.  ii,  10,  where  the  apos- 
tle declares,  that  in  granting  forgiveness  to  the  peni- 
tent offender,  he  acted  '  in  the  person  of  Christ,*— kv 
TTQoawTTG)  XpLGTOv — as  the  representative  of  Christ. 
The  same  idea  is  repeated  in  the  seventeenth  verse, 


30  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

*  apeak  wc  in  Clirist  f  that  is,  'in  the  name  of  Christ, 
as  his  legates.'      In  chap,  x,  8,  Paul  speaks  of  the 

*  authority'  which  Christ  hatl  given  him  for  the  edifica- 
tion of  the  cliurch ;  and  in  cliap.  xi,  5,  he  declares  his 
beHcf  that  lie  '  was  not  a  whit  behind  the  very  chiefest 
of  the  apostles :'  and  this  he  gives  as  a  reason  why  liis 
authority  should  be  regarded  by  the  Corinthians.  In 
the  twelfth  chapter,  throughout,  he  defends  his  claim 
to  the  confidence  and  obedience  of  the  churches,  by  the 
evidence  he  had  furnished  of  his  apostolic  and  inspired 
character.  lie  says :  '  In  nothing  am  I  behind  the 
very  chiefest  apostles,  though  I  be  nothing.  Truly 
the  signs  of  an  apostle  were  ivrought  among  you  in  all 
patience,  in  signs,  and  wonders,  and  mighty  deeds.' 
See  also  ch.  xiii,  2,  3, 10;  Gal.  i,  11, 12  ;  ii,  2,  6-10 ;  iv, 
14;  Eph.  iii,  1-7.  These  texts_seem  fully  to  author- 
ize the  belief,  that^the  apostles  spoke  and  acted  autho- 
ritatively,  solely  on  the  ground  of  their  apostolic  and 
mspired  character.  The  reason  wliy  Paul  had  occa- 
sion to  insist  so  much  upon  his  apostolical  character 
was,  that  many  persons,  particularly  the  false  teachers, 
questioned  and  denied  his  right  to  speak  with  authori- 
ty in  the  churches ;  because,  as  they  said,  he  was  not 
an  apostle,  chosen  of  Christ,  and  impowered  to  act  in 
liis  name." —  View,  pp.  73-4. 

Dr.  Campbell,  the  able  author  o£  the  Philosophy  of 
Rhetoric  and  the  Refutation  of  Hume,  has  discussed 
in  detail  this  question  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Lectures.* 
"Many,  indeed,  convinced  .  .  .  that  it  is  in  vain  to  search 
for  the  office  of  bishop,  as  the  word  is  understood  by 
moderns,  in  those  ministers  ordained  by  the  apostles 
in  the  churches  which  they  founded,  have  referred  us 
♦See  also  Emory's  Epis.  Cont.,  pp.  75-78. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  81 

for  its  origin  to  the  apostolate  itself.  I  have  passingly 
observed  already  that  this  was  one  of  those  extraordi- 
nary offices  which  were  in  their  nature  temporary,  and 
did  not  admit  succession.  But  this  point,  as  so  much 
stress  is  laid  upon  it,  will  deserve  to  be  examined  more 
particularly. 

"  The  apostles  may  be  considered  in  a  twofold  view, 
— either  in  their  general  character  as  the  first  pastors 
of  the  church  and  teachers  of  the  Christian  faith,  or  in 
what  is  implied  in  their  special  character  of  apostles 
of  Jesus  Clirist.  In  the  first  general  view  they  are" 
doubtless  the  predecessors  of  all  those  who,  to  the  end 
of  the  world,  shall  preach  the  same  gospel  and  admi- 
nister the  same  sacraments,  by  whatever  name  we  dis- 
tinguish them,  bishops,  priests,  or  deacons, — overseers, 
elders,  or  ministers.  But  the  question  still  recurs, 
whether,  agreeably  to  the  primitive  institution,  theh' 
successors,  in  respect  to  the  more  common  character 
of  teachers  and  directors  of  the  churches,  should  be 
divided  into  three  orders  or  only  into  two  ?  To  pre- 
sume, without  evidence,  that  the  first  and  not  the  second 
was  the  fact,  is  merely  what  logicians  call  a  petitio 
principn,  taking  that  for  granted  which  is  the  very 
point  in  dispute.  But  if  it  be  alledged,  that  not  in  the 
general  character  of  teachers,  but  in  their  special  func- 
tion as  apostles,  the  bisliops  are  their  proper  succes- 
sors, the  presbyters  and  deacons  being  only  the  suc- 
cessors of  those  who  were  in  the  begmning  ordained 
by  the  apostles,  this  point  will  require  a  separate  dis- 
cussion. And  for  this  purpose  your  attention  is  en- 
treated to  the  following  remarks. 

"  First,  the  indispensable  requisites  in  an  apostle 
sufiiciently  demonstrate  that  the  office  could  be  but 


32  ClIURCn  GOVERNMENT. 

temporai'j.  It  was  necessary  that  he  should  be  one 
who  had  seen  Jesus  Christ  in  the  llcsh  after  his  resur- 
rection. Accordingly  they  were  all  especially  destined 
to  serve  as  eye-witnesses  to  the  world  of  this  great 
event,  the  liinge  on  which  the  truth  of  Christianity 
depended.  The  character  of  apostle  is  bricfjyde- 
sci'ibed_by^  Peter,  who  was  himself  the  first  of  the 
apostolical  college,  as  one  ordained  to  be  a  witness  of 
Christ's  resurrection,  Acts  i,  22;  a  circumstance  of 
which  he  often  makes  mention  in  his  speeches,  both  to 
the  rulers  and  to  the  people.  See  Acts  ii,  32 ;  iii,  15  ; 
V,  32  ;  X,  41 ;  xiii,  31.  And  if  so,  the  office^  fromjts 
nature  and  design,  could  not  have  an  existence  after 
the  extinction  of  that  generation. 

"Secondly,  the  apostles  were  distinguished  by  pre-  2 
rogatives  which  did  not  descend  to  any  after  them. 
Of  this  kind  was,  first,  their  receiving  theii'  mission 
immediately  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Clirist,  not  mediately 


through  any  human  ordination  or  aj^pointment.     Of 
this  kind  also  was.  >cc(»n(lly,  tlir  power  of  coiilerring, 

I' by  imposition  of  IuiikI-,  the  ininiculous  gifts  of  the 
Spirit  on  ANhomsouVL-r  they  v.ould  ;  and,  thirdly,  the 
knowledge  they  had,  by  inspiration,  of  the  uhole  doc- 
^trinc  of  Christ.  It  was  for  this  reason  they  were  com- 
manded to  wait  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise  which 
their  Master  had  given  them,  that  they  should  be  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost.  "What  pains  does  not  Paul 
take  to  show  that  the  above-mentioned  marks  of  an 
apostle  belonged  to  him  as  well  as  to  any  of  them! 
That  he  had  seen  Christ  after  his  resuiTection,  and 
was  consequently  qualified,  as  an  eye-witness,  to  attest 
that  memorable  event,  he  observes,  (1  Cor.  ix,  1 ;  xv, 
8,)  that  his  commission  came  directly  from  Jesus  Christ 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  33 

and  God  the  Father,  without  the  intervention  of  any 
human  creature,  he  acquaints  us.  Gal.  i,  1 ;  ii,  6.  To 
his  conferring  miraculous  powers  as  the  signs  of  an 
apostle,  he  alludes,  2  Cor.  xii,  12 ;  and  that  he  re- 
ceived the  knowledge  of  the  gospel  not  from  any  other 
apostle,  but  by  immediate  inspiration.  Gal.  i,  11,  &c. 

"  Thirdly.  Their  mission  was  of  quite  a  different  kind 
from  that  of  any  ordinary  pastor.  It  was  to  propagate 
the  gospel  throughout  the_world,  both  among  Jews  and 
pagans,  and  not  to  take  charge  of  a  particular  flock. 
The  terms  of  their  commission  are,  '  Go  and  teach  all 
nations ;'  again,  ^  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature.'  No  doubt  they  may  be 
styled  bishops  or  overseers,  but  in  a  sense  very  differ- 
ent from  that  in  which  it  is  applied  to  the  inspector 
over  the  inhabitants  of  a  particular  district.  They 
were  universal  bishops.  The  whole  church,  or  rather 
the  whole  earth,  was  their  charge,  and  they  were  all 
colleagues  one  of  another.  Or,  to  give  the  same  senti- 
ment in  the  words  of  Chrysostom,  Eiacv  vtto  Oeov  ;^ef- 
porovrjOsvreg  anooroXoc  ap^ovre^ ,  ovk  eOvrj  km  noXeig 
diacpogovg  XapLliavovreg,  aXka  iravreg  kolvtj  ttjv  oIkov- 
l^evTjv  einTtarevOsvreg, — '  The  apostles  were  constituted 
of  God  rulers,  not  each  over  a  separate^  nation  or^ity, 
but  all  were  intrusted  with  the  world  in  common.'  if 
so,  to  have  limited  themselves  to  anything  less  would 
have  been  disobedience  to  the  express  command  they 
had  received  from  their  Master,  to  go  into  all  nations, 
and  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  If,  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  lives  of  any  of  them,  they  were, 
through  age  and  infirmities,  confined  to  one  place,  that 
place  would  naturally  fall  under  the  immediate  inspec- 
tion of  such ;  and  this,  if  even  so  much  as  tliis,  is  aU 
2* 


34  cnuRcn  government. 

tliat  has  given  rise  to  the  tradition  (for  there  is  nothing 
like  historical  evidence  in  the  case)  that  any  of  them 
were  bishops  or  pastors  of  particular  churches.  Nay, 
in  some  instances  it  is  plain  that  the  tradition  has  ori- 
ginated from  this  single  circumstance,  that  the  first 
pastors  in  such  a  church  were  appointed  by  such  an 
apostle ;  hence  it  has  arisen  that  the  bishops  of  differ- 
ent churches  have  claimed  (and  probably  with  equal 
truth)  to  be  the  successors  of  the  same  apostle. 

"Fourthly,  and  lastly.  As  a  full  proof  that  the  t^ 
matter  was  thus  universally  understood,  both  m  their 
own  age  and  in  the  times  immediately  succeeding,  no 
one,  on  the  death  of  an  a|;o--tl<'.  Avas  ever  substituted 
in  liis  room;  and  wlicii  that  oi-'uiinal  sacred  college 
was  exliiK't,  the  thh,'  iH'cainc  cxtiiKt  villi  it.  The 
election  of  jMaltliia-  by  the  apostle?,  in  tlic  room  of 
Judas,  is  no  exe; i)tion,  as  it  was  prc^ious  to  their 
entering  on  tlieir  charge.  They  kncAv  it  was  their 
Master's  intention  that  twelve  missionaries,  from  among 
those  who  had  attended  his  ministry  on  earth,  should 
be  employed  as  ocular  witnesses  to  attest  his  resurrec- 
tion, on  which  the  divinity  of  his  religion  depended. 
The  words  of  Peter  on  this  occasion  are  an  ample  con- 
firmation of  all  that  has  been  said^  both  in  regard  to 
the  end  of  the  office  and  the  qualifications  requisite  in 
the  person  wlio  fills  it,  at  the  same  time  that  they  afford 
a  demonstration  of  the  absurdity  as  well  as  arrogance 
of  modern  pretenders.  'Wlierefore  of  these  men 
which  have  companied  with  us  all  the  time  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us,  beginning  from 
the  baptism  of  John  unto  that  same  day  that  he  was 
taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness 
with  us  of  his  resurrection.'     But  afterward,  when  the 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  35 

apostle  James,  the  brother  of  John,  was  put  to  death 
by  Herod,  as  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we 
find  no  mention  madeof  a  successor.  Nor  did  the 
subsequent  admission  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  to  the 
apostleship  form  any  exception  to  what  has  been  ad- 
vanced; for  they  came  not  as  successors  to  any  one, 
but  Avere  especially  called  by  the  Holy  Spirit  as  apos- 
tles, particularly  to  the  Gentiles ;  and  in  them,  also, 
wei'e  found  the  qualifications  requisite  for  the  testimony 
which,  as  apostles,  they  were  to  give." 

With  these  authorities  and  reasonings  before  us,  we 
are  compelled  to  the  conclusion  that  the  apostolate  was 
one  of  the  extraordinary  and  temporary  offices  we  have 
enumerated,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  appealed  to  by 
prelatists  as  authority  for  their  peculiar  views  of  epis- 
copacy.    It  is  not  denied,  however,  that  episcopacy 
existed  in  the  primitive  church,  using  the  word  simply 
in  the  sense  of  a  general  superintendency.     Such  a 
supervision  of  the  church  was  doubtless  maintained  by 
the  apostles,  and  under  them,  and  some  time  after 
them,  by  the  evangehsts.     But  what  we  do  deny  is, 
that  this  superintendency  was  divinely  appointed  to  be 
a  distinct  and  permanent  order  of  the  ministry  i  that  it  j  / .  J^ 
was  anything  more  than  a  convenience  of  the  times  [| 
that  it  claimed  exclusively  the  right  of  ordination  and )  J>^ 
other  modern  prerogatives  of  episcopacy  |  that  there  is  ;  n 
any  mysterious  virtue  in  what  Wesley  has  justly  calledj 
the  "fable"  of  its  succession.     As  an  expedient  mea-f 
sure,  sanctioned  by  apostolic  example,  and  well  adapted, 
under  some  circumstances,  for  the  furtherance  of  the  , 
cause  of  Christ,  it  is  approved  by  Methodists,  and  on  j 
these  grounds  alone  do  they  imitate  it. 

It  is  asserted  further,  in  our  first  proposition,  that 


16  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

Wtewere  allowed  in  i\u  (  aili<  ~i  i;igc  of  the  church 
whic'li  colli'!  not  coiisi-i  wiih  ;iii  oi-;j;iiiizccl  government. 
"We  111  itl  oiilv  iiiciiiioii  the  uiKiiir-iionablc  fact,  that, 
durin^L!-  ilio-r  liiiir-;  of  (li-]ici'-ioii  nml  trial,  lauin'ii  ad- 
mini.-UTf'l  llio  .-arraniciit  in  |iarliriilar  ca-cs.  .Alo^huiui 
$ays :  '•  j\.t  lir.-t,  all  wIki  \V(1-(.'  cngai^fd  in  jn'oiia^iiating 
Clu'istiauity  administered  this  rite,  [baptism ;]  nor  can 
it  be  called  in  question,  that  whoever  persuaded  any 
person  to  embrace  Christianity,  could  baptize  his  own 
disciples."* 

CHAPTER  IV. 

ORIGIN   OF  THE  PRIMITIVE   CHURCH  POLITY. 

The  government  of  the  church  copied  from  the  synagogue — 
Authorities  for  this  opinion — Grotius — Vitringa — Coleman — Stil- 
lingfleet — "Watson — Archbishop  Whateley — This  position  a  proof 
that  church  government  is  not  of  divine  authority. 

Our  second  proposition  is,  thai  ••  It  wa-;  soon  found 
necessary  to  consolidate  the  eliureh  l»y  a  more  system- 
atic economy ;  it  adopted  the  one  nearest  at  hand  and 
most  convenient ;  namelj, Jhe_conventional  system  of 
the  Jewish  synagogue,  not  the  divinely  appointed  one 
of  the  temple ;  it  thus  derived  from  the  synagogue  its 
order  of  presbyter  and  deacon."  That  the  government 
of  the  church  was  copied  from  the  synagogue,  has  been 
proved  by  some  of  the  most  erudite  authorities  among 
Christian   writers.     In   the   list  of  these   authorities 

*  Murdock's  Mosheim,  vol.  i,  pp.  165-6,  1st  ed.  See  also 
Eusebius's  Ecc.  Hist.,  lib.  ii,  chap,  i;  Waddington's  Hist.  Ch., 
p.  43 ;  Campbell's  Lee.  on  Ecc.  Hist.,  lee.  iv,  pp.  62-65 ;  lee. 
viii,  pp.  135-127 ;  lee.  ix,  pp.  151-155 ;  Phila.  cd.,  1807. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  37 

may  be  named  Vitringa,  Selden,  Lightfoot,  Grotius, 
Stillingfleet,  Neander,  "Whateley,  Watson  (Richard,) 
Coleman,  &c. 

Groj:iu3  declares  that  "  the  whole  government  of  thd, 
churches  of  Christ  was  conformed  to  the  pattern  of  the 
synagogues." — Comment,  ad  Acts  xi,  30.  Vitringa,  in  :i,, 
his  celebrated  work  De  Synagogue  Veiere,  has,  to  use 
the  strong  language  of  his  title,  "  demonstrated  that 
the  form  of  government  and  of  the  ministry  in  the 
synagogue  was  transferred  to  the  Chiistian  church." 
Stillino^fleet  has  devoted  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  second!  t3 
part  of  his  Irenicum  to  the  same  subject,  and  treats  it 
with  conclusive  ability  and  learning.  We  must  refer 
the  reader  to  his  great  work  for  a  full  demonstration, 
of  the  point. 

Our  Saviour,  and  the  apostles  after  him,  fi'ec[uented 
the  synagogue.  It  was  convenient  to  them  on  three 
accounts :  first,  because  they  found  it  everywhere  in 
their  travels  among  the  Jews,  and  often  in  foreign 
parts;  secondly,  because  it  allowed  them  considerable  U^ 
freedom  of  speech,  by  which  they  could  address  their  J 
new  doctrines  to  the  people ;  and  thirdly,  because  theyt 
always  found  in  it  the  Old  Testament  scriptures,  by  j 
the  reading  and  exposition  of  which  they  could  prove  I 
their  doctrines.  On  these  accounts  the  apostles  and  I 
Jewish  Christians  continued  to  resort  to  the  synagogue,  | 
proving  to  their  brethren  that  Jesus  was  the  very  ' 
Christ. 

Tlie   converts   thus   made   to  the  new  faith  were 
formed  into  congregations  on  the  pattern  of  the  syna- 
gogue.    It  is  probable  that  whole  synagogues  were""! 
converted  to  the  Christian  cause  without  any  essential 
change  in  their  officers  and  form  of  service.  ^ 


I. 


38  CHIKCII   GOVERNMENT. 

Watson  has  shown,  in  Ins  Institutes,  "  that  the  mode 
of  public  worship  in  the  primitive  cliurch  wa3  taken 
from  the  synagogue  service ;"  "and  so  also,"  he  proves, 
^was  its  arrangement  of  offices." — Vol.  ii,  p.  578.  We 
shall  illustrate  these  facts  more  fully  from  the  highest 
authorities  directly. 

The  first  Christians  applied  the  name  sjnagoguejo 
their  assemblies.  '" '  If  there  come  into  your  assembly, 
(ovvaycjyi],)  if  there  come  into  your  synacjogue  a  man 
with  a  gold  ring,'  &c.  James  ii,  2.  Compare  also 
tTTLavvaycjyjjV.  Ileb.  x,  25.  Their  modes  of  worship 
were  substantially  the  same  as  those  of  the  synagogue. 
The  titles  of  their  oj^cers  they  also  borrowed  from  the 
same  source.  The  titles  bishop,  pastor,  presbyter,  &c., 
were  all  familiar  to  them  as  synonymous  terms,  denot- 
ing the  same  class  of  oiTiccrs  in  the  synagogue.  Their 
duties  and  prerogatives  remained,  in  substance,  the 
same  in  the  Christian  church  as  in  that  of  the  Jews. 
So  great  was  this  similarity  between  the  primitive 
Christian  churches  and  the  Jewish  synagogues,  that  by 
the  pagan  nations  they  were  mistaken 'for  the  same 
institutions.  Pagan  historians  uniformly  treated  the 
primitive  Christians  as  Jews." 

They  derived  the  right  of  ordination  from  the  syna- 
gogue.    It  is  an  embarrassing  fact  to  prelatical  writers 
(that  this  ceremony,  to  which  they  attach  such  mystical 
/and  almost  sacramental  virtue,  was  not  used  in  the 
consecration  of  the  divinely  appointed  jpriesthood  of 
the  Jews,  but  only  in  the  designation  ofjheir  civil 


officers  and  those  of  the  synagogue.     "Their  custom 

of  ordination  was  evidently  taken  up  by  the  Clmstians 

;from  a  correspondency  to  the  synagogue;  for  which 

{we  are  first  to  take  notice  that  the  rulers  of  the  church. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  39 

under  tlie  gospel,  do  not  properly  succeed  tlie  priests 
and  Levites  under  the  law,  whose  office  was  ceremo- 
nial, and  who  were  not  admitted  by  any  solemn  ordi- 
nation into  their  function,  but  succeeded  by  birth  into 
their  places;  only  the  great  Sanhedrim  did  judge  of 
their  fitness,  as  to  birth  and  body,  before  their  entrancej 
upon  their  function." — Stillingjieet,  Irenicum,  p.  288. 
Grotius  declares  that  "  all  the  rulers  and  elders  of  thel 
synagogue  were  so  ordained,  [by  imposition  of  hands,]  | 
from  whence  the  custom  was  translated  into  Christian- 1 
ity." — Annot.  in  Evang.,  p.  32. 

The  foregoing  positions  are  sustained  by  the  best 
authorities.  Mr.  "Watson  says  :  '•  Much  light  is  thrown 
upon  the  constitution  of  the  primitive  churches  by  re- 
collecting that  they  were  formed  very  much  upon  the 
model  of  the  Jewish  synagogues.  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  mode  of  public  worship  in  the  primitive 
church  was  taken  from  the  synagogue  service,  and  so 
also  was  its  arrangement  of  offices.  Each  synagogue 
had  its  rulers,  elders,  or  presbyters,  of  whom  one  was 
the  angel  of  the  church,  or  minister  of  the  synagogue, 
who  superintended  the  public  service,  directed  those 
that  read  the  Scriptures,  and  offered  up  the  prayers 
and  blessed  the  people.  The  president  of  the  council 
of  elders  or  rulers  was  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the 
'  ruler  of  the  synagogue ;'  and  in  some  places,  as  Acts 
xiii,  15,  we  read  of  these  'rulers'  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, a  sufficient  proof  that  one  was  not  elevated  in 
order  above  the  rest.  The  angel  of  the  church  and 
the  minister  of  the  synagogue  might  be  the  same  as 
he  who  was  invested  with  the  office  of  president,  or 
these  offices  might  be  held  by  others  of  the  elders. 
Liglitfoot,  indeed,  states  that  the  rulers  in  each  syna- 


40  cnuRcn  government. 

gogue  were  three,  while  the  presbyters  or  elders  were 
ten.  To  this  council  of  grave  and  wise  men  the  affairs 
of  the  synagogue,  both  as  to  worship  and  discipline, 
were  committed.  In  the  synagogue  they  sat  by  them- 
selves in  a  semicircle,  and  the  people  before  them,  face 
to  face.  This  was  the  precise  form  in  which  the 
bishop  and  presbyters  used  to  sit  in  the  primitive 
churches.  The  description  of  the  worship  of  the  syna- 
gogue by  a  Jewish  rabbi,  and  that  of  the  primitive 
church  by  early  Christian  writers,  presents  an  obvious 
correspondence.  'The  elders,'  says  Maimonides,  'sit 
with  their  faces  toward  the  people,  and  their  backs  to 
the  place  where  the  law  is  deposited,  and  all  the  peo- 
ple sit  rank  before  rank ;  so  the  faces  of  all  the  people 
are  toward  the  sanctuary  and  toward  the  elders ;  and 
when  the  minister  of  the  sanctuaiy  standeth  up  to 
prayer,  he  standeth  with  his  face  toward  the  sanctuary, 
as  do  the  rest  of  the  people.'  In  the  same  order  the 
first  Christians  sat  with  their  faces  toward  the  bishops 
and  presbyters,  first  to  hear  the  Scriptures  read  by  the 
proper  reader ;  *  then,'  says  Justin  Martyr,  '  the  reader 
sitting  down,  the  president  of  the  assembly  stands  up 
and  makes  a  seimon  of  instruction  and  exhortation. 
After  this  is  ended,  we  all  stand  up  to  prayers ;  pray- 
ers being  ended,  the  bread,  wine,  and  water  are  all 
brought  forth;  then  the  president  again  praying  and 
praising  to  his  utmost  ability,  the  people  testify  their 
consent  by  saying,  Amen.' — Apol.  2.  '  Here  we  have 
the  Scriptures  read  by  one  appointed  for  that  purpose, 
as  in  the  synagogue ;  after  which  follows  the  word  of 
exhortation  by  the  president  of  the  assembly,  who  an- 
swers to  the  minister  of  the  synagogue;  after  this, 
public  prayers  are  performed  by  the  same  person; 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  41 

then  the  solemn  acclamation  of  amen  by  the  people, 
which  was  the  undoubted  practice  of  the  synagogue.* 
— Stillingfleefs  Irenicum.  Ordination  of  presbyters' 
or^  elders  is  also  from^the  Jews.  Their  priests  were 
not  ordained,  but  succeeded  to  their  office  by  birth ; 
but  the  rulers  and  elders  of  the  synagogue  received 
ordination  by  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer. 

"  Such  was  the  model  which  the  apostles  followed 
in  providing  for  the  future  regulation  of  the  churches 
they  had  raised  up.  They  took  it  not  from  the  temple 
and  its  priesthood,  for  that  was  typical,  and  was  then 
passing  away ;  but  they  found  in  the  institution  of 
synagogues  a  plan  admirably  adapted  to  the  simplicity 
and  purity  of  Christianity,  one  to  which  some  of  the 
first  converts  in  most  places  were  accustomed,  and 
which  was  capable  of  being  applied  to  the  new  dis- 
pensation without  danger  of  Judaizing.  It  secured 
the  assembling  of  the  people  on  the  sabbath,  the  read-* 
ing  of  the  Scriptures,  the  preaching  of  sermons,  and 
the  offering  of  public  prayer  and  thanksgiving.  It 
provided,  too,  for  the  government  of  the  church  by  a 
council  of  jjresbyters,  ordained  solemnly  to  their  office 
by  imposition  of  hands  and  prayer ;  and  it  allowed  of 
that  presidency  of  one  presbyter  chosen  by  the  others, 
which  was  useful  for  order  and  for  unity,  and  by  which 
age,  piety,  and  gifts  might  preserve  their  proper  influ- 
ence in  the  church.  The  advance  from  this  state  of 
Scriptural  episcopacy  to  episcopacy  under  another 
form  was  the  work  of  a  later  age." — Institutes,  vol. 
ii,  pp.  578,  579. 

The  impartial  archbishop  of  Dublin,  Wliateley,  con- 
firms tliese  testimonies  of  Watson  and  Stillingfleet,  in 
the  following  words : — "  It_ js  probable  that  one  cause, 


42  ciURCii  GOvr.nxMKNT. 

humanly  speaking,  -svli^'-  wc  find  in  the  sacrcd^  book^ 
less  information  concerning  the  Christian  ministry  and 
the  constitution  of  church  governments,  than  wc  other- 
wise might  liave  found,  is,  that  these  institutions  had 
less  of  novelty  than  some  would  at  first  sight  suppose^ 
and  that  many  portions  of  them  did  not  wholly  origi- 
nate with  the  apostles.  It  appears  highly  proba})le — 
I  miglit  say,  morally  certain — that  wherever  a  Jewish 
synagogue  existed,  that  was  brought — the  whole,  or 
the  chief  part  of  it — to  embrace  the  gospel,  the  apostles 
did  not  there  so  much  form  a  Christian  church,  (or 
congregation,  ccclesia,)  as  7nal:e  an  existing  congrega- 
tion Christian,  by  introducing  the  Christian  sacra- 
fments  and  worship,  and  establishing  whatever  regu- 
\  lations  were  requisite  for  the  newly  adopted  faith ; 
leaving  the  machinery  (if  I  may  so  speak)  of  govern- 
ment unchanged;  the  rulers  of  synagogues,  elders, 
and  other  officers  (whether  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical, 
or  both)  being  already  provided  in  the  existing  insti- 
tutions. And  it  is  hkely  that  several  of  the  earliest 
Christian  churches  did  originate  in  this  way:  that  is, 
that  they  were  converted  synagogues ;  which  became 
Christian  churches  as  soon  as  the  members,  or  the 
main  part  of  the  members,  acknowledged  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah. 

"  The  attempt  to  effect  this  conversion  of  a  Jewish 
synagogue  into  a  Christian  church  seems  alwfu^s  to 
have  been  made,  in  the  first  instance,  in  every  place 
where  there  was  an  opening  for  it.  Even  after  the 
call  of  the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  it  appears  plainly  to 
have  been  the  practice  of  the  apostles  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas, when  they  came  to  any  city  in  which  there  was 
a  synagogue,  to  go  thither  first  and  deliver  their  sacred 


CHUECH   GOVERNMENT.  43 

message  to  tlie  Jews  and  ^devout  (or  proselyte)  Gen- 
tiles ;' — according  to  their  own  expression,  (Acts  xiii, 
17,)  to  tlie  'men  of  Israel  and  those  thai  feared  God:' 
adding,  that '  it  was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God 
should  first  be  preached  to  them.'  And  when  they 
founded  a  church  in  any  of  those  cities  in  which  (and 
such  were,  probably,  a  very  large  majority)  there  was 
no  Jewish  synagogue  that  received  the  gospel,  it  is 
likely  they  would  still  conform,  in  a  great  measure,  to 
the  same  model." — Kingdom  of  Christ,  pp.  83-86. 

Coleman  declares :  "It  is  an  admitted  fact,  as  clearlj 
settled  as  anything  can  be  by  human  authority,  that 
the  primitive  Christians,  in  the  oro^anization  of  their 
assemblies,  formed  them  after  the  model  of  the  Jewish 
They  discarded  the  splendid  ceremonials 


of  the  temple  service,  and  retained  the  simple  rites  of 
the  synagogue  worship." — Prim.  Ch.,  p.  45.  Stilling^ 
fleet  is  so  fuU  and  elaborate  on  the  subject  that  we  I 
must  refer  the  reader  to  his  irrefutable  work,  content- 
ing ourselves  with  two  summary  passages.  He  says, 
using  the  italics  himself,  "We  have  the  smne  ordeiy^  . 
for  irrayerSy  reading  tlie  Scrij)turcs  according  to  occa-^ 
sion,  and  sermons  made  out  of  them  for  increase  of\ 
faith,  raising  hope,  strengthenijig  confidence.  We  have  \ 
tlie  discipline  of  the  church,  answering  the  admonitions 
yind  excommunications  of  the  synagogue :  and  last  of 
[all,  we  have  the  hench  of  ciders  sitting  in  these  assem-' 
\blies,  and  ordering  the  tilings  helonging  to  themJ' — 
Iren.,  pp.  287,  288.  "That  which  we  lay,  then,  as 
the  foundation  whereby  to  clear  what  apostolical  prac- 
tice was,  is,  that  the  apostles,  in  forming  churches,  did '. 
observe  the  customs  of  the  Jewish^synagogues.  '  The 
whole  ofovernment  of  the  churches  of  Christ  was  con- 


44  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

formed  to  the  pattern  of  the  synagogues,'  saith  Grotius, 
truly.  *  It  is  evident  that  the  governors  and  overseers 
of  the  churches  were  constituted  according  to  the  like- 
ness of  the  ciders  of  the  Jcwi.sh  synagogues/  as  Sal- 
masius  often  aflirms :  in  which  sense  we  understand 
■  that  famous  speech  of  the  author  of  the  commentary 
on  St.  Paul's  epistles,  which  goes  under  the  name  of 
Ambrose,  but  now  judged  by  most  to  be  done  by 
Hilary,  a  deacon  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  under  which 
name  St.  Augustine  quotes  some  words  on  the  fifth 
to  the  Romans,  which  are  found  still  in  those  commen- 
taries. '  For  certainly  among  all  nations,  age  is  ac- 
counted honorable.  Hence  both  the  synagogue,  and 
afteiTN'ard  the  church,  had  elders,  without  whose  advice 
nothing  in  the  church  was  done ;'  which  words  are  not 
to  be  understood  of  a  distinct  sort  of  presbyters  from 
such  as  were  employed  in  preaching  the  word,  but  of 
such  presbyters  as  were  the  common  council  of  the 
church,  for  the  moderating  and  ruling  the  affairs  of  it ; 
which  the  church  of  Christ  had  constituted  among 
them,  as  the  Jewish  synagogue  had  before." — Iren., 
p.  2G3. 

The  temple  service  of  the  Jews  was  divinely  ap- 
pointed — the  pricsthoocTappertainecT  to  it;  but  the 
sjTiagogue  was  a  local  and  conventional  institution, 
founded  on  not  a  single  command,  oxcept  the  general 
one  contained  in  Leviticus  xxiii,  o.  "  It  was  in- 
troduced," says  Stillingfleet,  "  by  a  confederate  disci- 
pluie  among  themselves ;  for  although  the  reason  of 
erecting  them  was  grounded  on  a  command  in  the 
Levitical  law,  where  holy  convocations  are  required 
upon  the  sabbath  days,  yet  the  building  of  syna- 
gogues in  the  land  was  not,   as  far  as  we  can  find, 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  45 

till  a  great  while  after.  For  although  Moses  required 
the  duty  of  assembling,  yet  he  prescribes  no  orders  for 
the  place  of  meeting,  nor  for  the  manner  of  spending 
those  days  in  God's  service,  nor  for  the  persons 
who  were  to  superintend  the  public  worship  per- 
formed at  that  time." — Iren..,  p.  264.  If,  then,  the 
government  of  the  church  is  not  prescribed  by  a  single 
passage  of  the  New  Testament ;  if  most  of  its  original 
offices  were  adapted  only  to  temporary  exigencies,  as 
we  have  shown;  aiid  if,  as  we  now  assert,  its  only 
permanent  offices  were  borrowed  not  from  the  divinely 
prescribed  system  of  the  temple,  but  from  the  conven- 
tional  arrangements  of  the  synagogue,  how  preposterous 
are  the  importance  and  pretensions  which  the  advocates 
of  *^ divine  ri2;ht"  have  attached  to  it! 


CHAPTER  V. 

BISHOPS    AND    PRESBYTERS    THE    SAME   IN    ORDER. 

Identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters — Definition — Scripture 
proof — Testimony  of  the  fathers^Clement  of  Rome — Poly- 
carp — Justin  Martyr — Ignatius — Irenaeus — Jerome — St.  Augus- 
tine— Hilary — Theodoret — Anglican  authorities. 

Our  third  proposition  declares,  that  on  the  disap- 
pearance of  the  first  and  temporary  offices  which  were 
created  by  the  earliest  emergencies  of  the  church,  the 
two  orders  of  presbyters  or  bishops,  and  deacons,  were 
the  only  ones  recognized  as  permanently  established — 
presbyters  and  bishops  being  identical  in  order.  The 
last  clause  of  this  proposition  alone  remains  to  be  dis- 
cussed, namely,  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters 


Hx^  a. 


«  .  I  ^    — 


46  CHURCH  government. 

— the  former  part  having  been  considered  in  our  last 
chapkT. 

Beibre  entering  upon  the  discussion,  let  us  under- 
stand our  terms : — 

JJpiscopos — (Greek,  emoKOTrog) — signifies  an  over- 
seer or  su[)erintendent. 

Bishop — (Saxon,  bischop) — is  a  corruption  of  the 
Latinized  Greek  word  episcopus.  Its  analogy  to  the 
second  and  third  syllables  of  the  latter  is  obvious. 

Presbyter  or  elder — (Greek,  Trpecr/Surtpoc) — signi- 

!  fies  an  elder  or  old  man.    The  early  Christians  derived 

j  it,  as  we  have  shown,  from  the  Jews,  who  applied  it  to 

the  LeaTIs  of  their  tribes,  their  civil  officers,  and  the 

Jiigher  officers  of  the  synagogue. 

Were  these  orders  of  the  primitive  ministry  iden- 
tical ?     We  ai-gue  that  they  were  : — 

First.  From  the  manner  in  which  the  sacred  writei*s 
use  the  terms.  The  word  bishop  i>  u<ri]  five  times  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  in  each  ca-c  it  is  evidently 
synonymous  with  presbyter.  It  is  first  found  in  Acts 
; pxx,  17,  "Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock 
over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops, 
'  (emGKOTTovg,)  to  feed  the  church  of  God  which  he 
liath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  To  whom  is 
this  designation  applied  ?  The  seventeenth  verse  in- 
forms us,  "  from  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called 
the  elders  (jDresbyters,  TTQeGfSvregovg)  of  the  church. 
And  when  t/tei/  were  come,  he  said  unto  them,"  &c. 
Unquestionably,  then,  the  apostle  addresses  those  as 
bishops  whom  the  historian  calls  presbyters. 

In  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  (Phil,  i,  1,)  St. 
Paul  salutes  them  as  the  "  saints,"  "  with  the  bishops 
and  deacons."     We  submit  four  remarks  on  this  pas- 


Ui 


SJ 


CHUKCn  GOVERNMENT.  47 

sage.     (1.)  If  the  apostle  meant  by  bishops  here,  a)-\ 
third  order,  according  to  the  modern  prelatical  use^of 
the  appellation,  then  while  he  fails  not  to  notice  the 
lowest  order,  (deacons,)  he  utterly  neglects  the  second 
(presbyters) — a  class  of  pastors  acknowledged  hj  all  to 
Kave  heen  general  in  the  primitive  cliurch.     Such  an 
omission  w^ould  be  entirely  irreconcilable  with  his  cha- 
racter, and  with  propriety.     (2.)  If  he  meant  by  it  2.^ 
presbyters,  as  we  contend  he  did,  and  there  w^ere  at 
the  same  time  prelaIicaI~T5ishops  at  Phllippi,  then, 
while  he  saluted  the  mferior  officers,  he  passed  by  the 
highest  and  most  important  dignitaries  of  the  church 
— a  supposition  totally  inadmissible.    (3.)  If  he  a^Dplied  ^j 
the  term  to  a  third  order,  then,  as  he  uses  it  in  the 
plural  number,  there  must  have  been  more  than  one 
prelate  in  the  church  at  Pliilippi,  which  interferes  with 
the   fundamental   principles    of  diocesan   episcopacy. 
(4.)   Our  construction  of  the  text  is  confirmed  by  the  Lf ) 
testimony  of  Chrysostom.     He  thus  comments  on  it: 
"How  is  this?     Were  there   many  bishops   in   the 
same  city  ?     By  no  means ;  but  he  calls  the  presby- 
ters by  this  name,  [bishops  ;]  for  at  that  time  this  was 
the  common  appellation  of  both." — In  Phil,  i,  1,  p.  199, 
seq.,  tom.  xi. 
.       It  is  worthy  of  note,  that  Pplycarp,  the  disciple  of  ,,:\ 
/  John,  addressed  an  epistle  to  this  same  church  about  ''^ 
A.  D.  140,  in  which  he  exhorts  them  "to  be  subject 
to  the  presbyters  and  deacons."     Paul  spoke  of  the 
"  bishops  and  deacons."     Both  notice  the  lowest  office ; 
but  of  the  other  two,  (if  there  were  two,)  Paul  omits 
one,  and  Polycarp  the  other — a  circumstance  which  is 
inexpKcable  unless  the  bishops  of  the  one  werejhe 
presbyters  of  the  other.  ^.^, 


48  cnuRcn  government. 

In  Titus  i,  7,  it  is  said,  "  For  a  bishop  must  be 
blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God,"  &c.  The  apostle 
had  left  Titus  in  Crete  to  orG^anizc  tlio  Christian 
Converts~'ihto~chur(.'lir<,  nnd  onlaiii  pa-i'u-^  among 
them.  lie  describes  the  qiuilifications  of  these  pastors. 
What  were  these  bishops  ?  Were  they  elders  ?  He 
teUs  us,  in  the  fifth  verse,  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee 
in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things 
that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every  city,"  &c. 
After  describing  the  necessary  qualifications  of  these 
elder?,  lie  assert?,  a>  a  reason  for  such  qualifications, 
that  "a  j)i.siK>r  {h-ioh-n-or — cpiscopon — an  overseer) 
must  be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God;  not  self- 
willed,  not  soon  angry,"  «S:c. ;  hereby  clearly  imj)lying 
that  a  bishop  and  an  elder  were  ideiitical.  Wkttt  eould 
1p  BMve  e¥y6Mt? 

■^  The  word  occurs  again  in  1  Tim.  iii,  2,  "  A  bishop, 
then,  must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,"  &c. 
Tlie  apostle,  in  this  chapter,  instructs  Timothy  respect- 
ing the  qualifications  of  a  bishop,  and  then  immediately 
describes  those  of  a  deacon,  without  a  single  reference 
to  presbyters,  though  these  were  an  unquestionable  and 
universal  order  of  pastors  in  the  ancient  church,  and 
though  he  was  expressly  directing  Timothy  in  the 
appointment  of  its  necessary  ofiicers.  This  fact,  in 
connection  with  the  passages  already  examined,  ren- 
ders it  evident  that  he  calls  the  presbyters  bishops ; 
and  that  he  did  not  neglect  them  by  an  oversight,  is 
manifest  from  the  consideration  that  in  chap,  ii,  14  he 
refers  to  the  presbytery,  and  in  chap  v,  17  speaks  of 


the  elders  or  presbyters  who  rule  well. 

:    The  last   passage   in   which   the   word    bishop   is 

found   is   1    Peter  ii,   25,   where   it   is   applied  to 


CHUECH  GOVERNMENT.  49 

our  Lord,  and  cannot,  therefore,   affect  the  present  I 
discussion. 

In  this  part  of  the  inquiry  we  ought  not  to  omit  the 
passage  in  1  Peter  v,  1,  2,  "The  elders  which  are 
among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder.  Feed 
the  flock  of  Christ  which  is  among  you,  taking  the 
oversight  thereof"; — eTTLGKOTTovvreg,  acting  the  paH  of 
a  BISHOP  toward  them.  There  were  evidently  no 
prelatical  bishops  over  the  people  whom  Peter  thus 
puts  under  the  episcopal  care  of  the  presbyters. 

Dr.  Mafion  presents  summarily  the  Scriptural  argu^  ^ 
ment  in  the  following  words : — "  That  the  terms  bishop  \        ^ 
and  presbyter^  in  their  application  to  the  first  class  of  1  -     , 
officers,  are  perfectly  convertible,  the  one  pointing  out  !    "^  '^"' 
the  very  same  cla  ss  of  rulers  with  the  other,  is  as  evi-    (^  ^  ►v- 
denTas  the  sun  shining  in  his  strength.     Timothy  was 
instructed  by  the  apostle  Paul  in  the  qualities  which 
were  to  be  required  in  those  who  desired  the  office  of  a> 
BISHOP.     Paul  and  Barnabas  ordained  presbyters  ^ 
in  every  church  which  they  had  founded.     Titus  is 
directed  to  ordain  in  every  city  presbyters  who  are 


^  to  be  blameless ;  the  husband  of  one  ivife.     And  the 


reason  of  so  strict  a  scrutiny  into  character  is  thus  or- 
dered :  for  a  bishop  must  he  blameless.  If  this  does 
not  identify  the  bishop  with  the  preshyter,  in  the  name 
of  common  sense  what  can  do  it  ?  Suppose  a  law, 
pointing  out  the  qualifications  of  a  sheriff',  were  to  say, 
A  sheriff  must  be  a  man  of  pure  character,  of  great 
activity  and  resolute  spirit ;  for  it  is  highly  necessary 
that  a  governor  be  of  unspotted  reputation,  &c.,  the 
bench  and  bar  would  be  rather  puzzled  for  a  construc- 
tion, and  would  be  compelled  to  conclude,  either  that 
something  had  been  left  out  in  transcribing  the  law,  or 
3 " 


50  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

that  governor  and  sheriff  meant  tlic  same  sort  of  officer ; 
or  that  their  honors  of  the  legishiturc  had  taken  leave 
of  their  wits.     Tlie  rn'^c  is  not  :i  Avliit  stronger  than 
tEe  case  of  presbyter  ainl  li!~li..ji  in  iIm   I  epistle  to  Titus. 
Again :  Paul,  when  on  hi?  la-t   j.mhih}  to  JorusalemTl^-l 
sends  for  the  presbyters  of  i:|.li(<us  U)  meet  liim  at 
.  Miletus,  and  there  enjoins  these  presbyters  to  feed 
\  the  church  of  God  over  which   the   Hohj    Ghost  had 
rnade  them  bishops.    It  appears,  then,  that  the  bishops 
to  whom  Paul  refers  in  his  instructions  to  Timothy 
.  were  neitlier  more  nor  less  tlum  plain  presbyters.     To 
\  ajman  ^v]lo  lias  no  turn  to  serve,  no  interest  in  pervert- 
ing the  obvious  meaning  of  words,  one  would  think 
that   a  mathematical  demonstration  could  not  cai'ry 
j  more  satisfactory  evidence." —  Worhs,  vol.  iii,  pp.  41-43. 
;  Comp.  King,  Prim.  Church,  pp.  67,  C8. 
r-    Coleman  remarks  on  the  terms  bishop  and  preshyier, 
that  the  former  is  derived  from  the  Greek  language 
— the  latter  is  of  Jewish  origin  :  accordingly  the  apos- 
tles, when  addressing  Jewish  Christians,  use  the  term 
presbyter ;  but  in  their  addresses  to  Gentile  converts, 
they  adopt  the  term  bishop,  as  less  obnoxious  to  those 
who  spoke  the  Greek  language.   (Prim.  Ch.,  p.  131.) 

We  argue  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  in 
the  second  place,  from  the  testinaony  of  the  fathers. 
Clement  of  Kome  is  among  the  most  authentic  of  the 
apostolic  fathers.  About  A.  D.  95  he  wrote  his  cele- 
brated epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  He  rebukes  them 
for  degrading  certain  presbyters  from  their  bishopric, 
'  CLTTO  TTjg  eTnoKOTTTjg.  He  mentions  but  two  orders  in 
jthe  ministry  at  Corinth,  bishops  and  deacons.  He 
I  makes  not  the  shghtest  allusion  to  a  single  or  prelati- 
1^  bishop  in  that  church,  but  recognizes  the  expelled 


CHURCH  G0VERN5IENT.  51 

presbyters  as  in  the  highest  order.      "  The  apostles  ] 
preaching  in  countries  and  cities,  appointed  the  first-  i 
fruits  of  their  labors  to  be  bishops  and  deacons,  having 
proved  them  by  the  Spirit."    "  It  were  a  grievous  sin," 
he  proceeds  to  say,  "  to  reject  those  who  have  faith- 
fully fiilfilled  the  duties  of  their  episcopal  office  ;"  and  j 
immediately  adds,  "  blessed  are  those  presbyters  who  j 
have  finished  their  course  and  entered  upon  their  re-  j 
ward :"  that  is,  blessed  are  those  presbyters  who  have  j' 
thus  faithfully  performed  the  duties  of  their  episcopal  j 
office  ;  bishops  and  presbyters  being  used  interchange- 
ably as  descriptive  of  the  same  order.    {Ep,  ad  Gor.^ 
sec.  44.     Apud  Coleman's  Prim.   Ch.,  pp.  164,  165.)  ; 
Again,  he  says,  "  Who  is  there  among  you  that  is  ' 
generous  ?  who  that  is  compassionate  ?  who  that  has 
any  charity?  let  him  say,  if  this  sedition,  tliis  contention,  : 
and  these  schisms,  be  upon  my  account,  I  am  ready  to  i 
depart ;  to  go  away  whithersoever  ye  please ;  and  do 
whatsoever  ye  shall  command  me ;  only  let  thefioch  of 
Christ  be  in  peace,  with  the  ciders  that  are  set  over 
it'' — Epis.  ad  Cor.,  54.  -j 

r     Waddington,  an  Episcopalian,  says  of  these  pas-  ' 
sages,  "  The  episcopal  form  of  government  was  clearly 
not  yet  here  [at  Corinth]   established,   probably  as 
being  adverse  to  the  republican  spirit  of  Greece ;"  and 
Riddle  says,  "  Clement  himself  was  not  even  aware  of  I 
1  the  distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters — terms  ' 
[which  in  fact  he  uses  as  synonymous."  *" 

Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  wrote,  about  A.  D,        X. 
140,  an  epistle  to  the  Philippian  church,  which  cor- 
responds entirely  with  Clement  in  recognizing  but  two 
orders  in  the  ministry,  but  differs  from,  or  rather  ex- 
plains Clement,  by  invariably  limiting  them  \x>  presby^ 


A.3».  )  vo.  -  - 

52  CUURCU    GOVERNMENT. 

ters  aud  deacons.  He  uniformly  represents  the  J9rc<- 
h^ers  08  the  rulers  of  the  church,  and  the  word  bIsHop 
does  not  once  occur  in  Jiis  letter.  He  exhorts  the 
Philippians  "  to  be  subject  to  the  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons." St.  Paul,  in  addi'cssing  the  same  church,  men- 
tions, as  we  have  seen,  only  bishops  and  deacons.  It 
is  certainly  a  remarkable  circumstance  that  the  apostle 
should  omit  one  order  and  Polycarp  another,  if  the 
bisliops  of  the  apostle  were  not  the  presbyters  of  the 
father;  and  unless  we  admit  their  identity,  we  ai'c 
compelled  to  the  conclusion,  that  while  this  eminent 
Christian  father,  whose  writings  were  publicly  read  in 
the  primitive  churches,  enjoins  reverence  and  obedience 
to  the  authority  of  presbyters  and  deacons  as  the  i-ulers 
of  the  church,  he  utterly  forgets  to  claim  the  same  re- 
gard for  a  much  higher  and  more  important  order  of 
the  ministry,  Polycarp  agrees  with  Paul  (Titus  i, 
5-9)  in  describing  the  qualifications  of  presbyters  Avith- 
out  referring  at  all  to  those  which  are  necessary  to  a 
bishop. 

The  philosopher,  Justin  Martyr,  the  contemporary 
of  Polycarp,  in  describing  the  mode  of  worsliip  in  the 
first  churches,  limits  its  officers  to  two  orders — the 
deacons  and  antistes  or  presidents,  evidently  meaning 
by  the  latter  the  presbyters.* 

TVe  thus  advance  into  the  secoiid  century,  finding 
the  Scriptures  and  fathers  uniformly  recognizing  but 
two  orders  in  the  ministry,  and  these  are  obviously 
presbyters  and  deacons.  According  to  Mosheini  and 
the  best  authorities,  it  was  in  this  century  that  the  title 
of  bishop  began  to  be  appropriated  distinctively  to  the 

*  Apol.  i,  c.  65  and  67.  Milton  has  a  good  comment  on  Jus- 
tin's testimony  :  Prose  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  76. 


^,3,  /^4.  -  j\,  .j>.  sd  a, 

CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  53 

elder  who  presided  in  the  consultations  or  meetings  of 
the  presbyters  of  each  church.  The  increased  num- 
ber and  business  of  the  churches  required  such  synods, 
and  the  orderly  performance  of  their  business  required 
such  a  superintendency.  This  presiding  presbyter 
was,  however,  considered  only  as  a  'prince'ps  inter  pares 
— -a  president  among  equals,  and  not  of  a  superior  or- 
der divinely  appointed.  Ignatius  (A.  D.  116)  is  the 
first  writer  who  notices  the  distinction,  but  so  decisive 
is  the  evidence  that  most  of  his  epistles  are  forgeries, 
that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  his  alledged  testi- 
mony. The  very  best  critics  declare  that  they  have 
been  egregiously  interpolated.  Yet  if  his  authority 
were  admissible,  it  would  be  far  from  sustaining  the 
prelatical  doctrine  of  episcopacy.  Ignatius's  bishops 
were  but  "  pastors  of  single  congregations,"* — ^presid- 
ing  presFyters ;  and  he  nowhere  describes  them  as  the 
only  representatives  of  the  apostles,  and,  on  this  ac- 
count,  an  ordeF'distihct Irom  presbyters;  but  repeat- 
edly  affirms  presbyters  to  be  fhe  true  successors  of  the 
apostles :  "  Your  presbyters,  in  the  place  of  the  council 
of  the  apostles" — "Be  ye  subject  to  your  presbyters,  as 
to  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope." — Trail, 
sec.  2.  "  Reverence  .  .  .  the  presbyters  as  the  sanhe- 
drim of  God,  and  college  of  the  apostles" — lb.,  sec.  3. 

The  later  primitive  writers 'of  the  church  confirm"! 
our  position.  Irenseus,  who  died  about  A.  D.  202, ' 
evidently  uses  the  names  bishops  and  presbyters  as 
convertible  terms.  Speaking  of  certain  heretics,  he  | 
says :  "  When  we  refer  them  to  that  apostolic  tradi- 1 
tion  which  is  preserved  in  the  churches,  through  the 
succession  of  their  presbyters,  these  men  oppose  the  | 
»  See  Coleman,  p.  199.  I 


54  CnURCII   GOVERNMENT. 

tradition ;  pretending  that,  being  more  wise  than  not 
only  the  pi-esbt/ters,  but  the  ai)ostles  themselves,  they 
have  found  the  uncorrupted  truth." — Adv.  JIaer.j  lib. 
iii,  eh.  ii,  sec.  2.     Continuing  tlie  same  course  of  rea- 
soning, the  author,  in  the  next  section,  again  styfes 
these  same  presbyters  hisliops :  "  We  can  enumerate 
those  who  were  constituted  by  the  apostles  bishops  in 
the  churches ;  their  successors,  also,  even  down  to  our 
time.     But  because  it  would  be  tedious,  in  such  a 
volume  as  tliis,  to  enumerate  the  successions  in  all  the 
churches,  showing  to  you  the  tradition  and  declared 
I  faith   of  the   greatest,    and   most  ancient,  and  noted 
:  church,  founded  at  Rome  by  the  two  glorious  apostles, 
;  Peter  and  Paul,  which  she  received  from  the  apostles, 
;  and   is  come   to  us  through  the  successions  of  the 
bishops,  we  confound  all  who  conclude  otherwise  than 
they  ought,  by  what  means  soever  they  do  so." — Ibid.j 
i  chap,  iii,  sec.  1. 

"The  very  same  traditions  and  successions,"  says 
Coleman,  (p.  170,)  "  which  are  here  ascribed  to  the 
bishops,  are  just  above  assigned  also  to  the  presby- 
ters ;"  and  lie  speaks  of  Polycarp  as  a  bishop  in  one 
'  place,  and  in  another  as  a  "  blessed  and  apostolic  pres- 

'  Again,  he  says,  that  they  who  cease  to  serve  the 
church  in  the  ministry  are  a  reproach  to  the  sacred 
order  of  the  presbyters  ;  but  he  had  just  before  styled 
these  same  persons  bishops. 

In  his  letter  tt»  the  Roman  Bishop  Victor,  he  speaks 
of  the  presbyters  who  had  presided  over  the  church  in 


that  city  before  that  bishop.  One  of  these  bishops 
was  the  predecessor  of  Victor  Anicetus,  whom  Poly- 
carp endeavored  in  vain  to  persuade  "  to  retain  the 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  55 

usage  of  the  presbyters  who  had  preceded  liim."— »] 
Euseh.  JEccl.  Hist,  lib.  v,  c.  24. 

Similar  testimonies  from  Clement  of  Alexandria,     6. 
TertuUian,  &c.,  may  be  found  in  Campbell,  Coleman, 
&c.     We  pass  to  some  from  the 'later  fathers.'     That"^     M 
of  Jerome,    in   the    fifth    century,   not    only    asserts!      ^ 
our  position,  but  declares  the  manner  in  which  the 
name  bishop  was  changed  from  its  indiscriminate  ap- 
plication  to  alT  presbyters  to  its  distinctive  application 
to  the  presiding  presbyter.     He  says  :  "  A  presbyter, . 
therefore,  is  the  same  as  a  Ushop :  and  before  there  | 
were,  hy  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  parties  in  religion,  ^ 
and  it  was  said  among  different  people,  /  am  of  Paul,  \ 
and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  the  churches  were 
governed  by  the  joint  counsel  of  the  presbyters ;  but 
afterward,  when  every  one  accounted  those  whom  he 
baptized  as  belonging  to  himself  and  not  to  Christ, 
it  was  decreed  throughout  the  whole  world  that  one, 
chosen  from  among  the  presbyters,  should  be  put  over 
the  rest,  and  that  the  whole  care  of  the  church  should  be 
committed  to  him,  and  the  seeds  of  schism  taken  away. 

"  Should  any  think  that  this  is  only  my  own  private 
opinion,  and  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  let  him 
read  the  words  of  the  apostle  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Phi- 
lippians :  '  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus 
Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at  i 
Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons,'  &c.     Phihppi  j 
is  a  single  city  of  Macedonia ;    and  certainly  in  one ! 
city  there  could  not  be  several  bishops,  as  they  are  now 
styled ;  buFas" they,  at  that  time,  called  the  very  same 
persons    bishops"whoin   they  called  presbyters,   the 
apostle  has  spoken  without  distinction  of  bishops  as 
presbyters. 


56  cnuRcn  government. 

"  Should  this  matter  yet  appear  doubtful  to  any  one, 
unless  it  be  proved  by  an  additional  testimony,  it  is 
written  in  the  Aets  of  the  Apostles,  that  when  Paul 
had  come  to  Miletus,  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called 
the  presbyters  of  that  church,  and,  among  other  things, 
said  to  them,  '  Take  heed  to  yourselves  and  to  all  the 
flock  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  made  you  bishops.' 
Take  particular  notice  that  calling  the  preshjters  of 
the  single  city  of  Ephesus,  he  afterward  names  the 
same  persons  bishops." 

After  further  quotations  from  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, and  from  Peter,  he  proceeds :  "  Our  intention 
in  these  remarks  is  to  show  that,  among  the  ancients, 
presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  very  same;  but  by  little 
and  little,  that  the  plants  of  dissension  might  be  plucked 
up,  the  whole  concern  was  devolved  upon  an  indi- 
vidual. As  the  presbyters,  therefore,  knew  that  they 
are  subjected,  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  to  him  avIio 
is  set  over  them,  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they  are 
greater  than  presbyters  more  by  custom  than  by  any 
real  appointment  of  Christ"* 

St.  Augustine,  the  celebrated  contemporary  of  Je- 
rome, gives  the  same  opinion :  "  The  office  of  a  bishop 
is  above  the  office  of  a  priest  [presbyterj  not  by  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  but  after  the  names  of  honor 
which,  through  the  custom  of  the  church,  have  now 
ohtsdnQd."— Jewel's  Defense,  pp.  122,  123. 

The  author  of  the  commentaries  on  St.  Paul's  epis- 
tles, supposed  by  some  to  be  Ambrose  and  by  others 
Hilary  (A.  D.  384,)  says :  "  The'apostle  calls  Timo- 
thy, create^  liL^B  ^  presbyter,  a  bishop ;  for  the  first 

*  Mason's  Works,  vol.  iii,  pp.  225-228.  On  Jerome's  contra- 
dictions, see  Stillingfleet,  Am.  ed.,  p.  302. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  57 

presbyters  were  called  bishops." — Comment,  in  Eph.^ 
iv,  11,  12.    Inter,  Op,  Ambrose, 

Chrysostom  (A.  D.  407}^  says :  "  "Wherefore,  as  I 
said,  presbyters  were  anciently  called  bishops  and 
stewards  of  Christ,  and  bishops  were  called  presbyters. 
For  this  reason,  even  now,  many  bishops  speak  of  their 
fellow-presbyter  and  fellow-minister;  and  finally,  the 
name  of  bishop  and  presbyter  is  given  to  eaeh_indis- 
criminately.'' — JSp,  ad  Phil,  tom.  ii,  p.  194. 

Theodgret,  immediately  after  Chrysostom,  in  com- 
menting upon  St.  Paul's  words,  (Phil,  i,  1,)  declares 
l^^LJ^ishqps  and  presbyters  "had,  at  that  time,  the 
same  names,  as  we  have  from  the  history  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles."  He  says:  "It  is  evident  that  he 
[St.  Paul,  in  his  instructions  to  Titus]  denominates 
the  presbyters  bishops,"  (^.  ad  Phil.,  p.  445,  tom. 
iii ;)  and  of  Phil,  ii,  25,  he  says,  that  "  those  who,  in 
the  beginning  of  the  epistle,  are  called  bishops,  evi- 
dently  belonged  to  the  grade  of  the  presbyteiy." — 
Ibid.,  p.  459.  On  1  Tim.  iii,  1,  he  affirms  that  Paul 
"  calls  the  presbyter  a  bishop,  as  we  have  had  occa- 
sion to  show  in  our  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians."— ^.  ad  Tim.,  p.  652. 

Coleni^n  (chap,  vi)  gives  similar  and  abundant  tes- 
timonies  to  show  that  the  same  opinion  was  generally 
entertained  even  through  the  middle  ages,  and  ^esler 
declares  "  that  the  distmction  between  the  divine  and 
the  ecclesiastical  appointment,  institutio,  was  of  less 
importance  in  the  middle  ^ges  than  in  the  modem 
Catholic  Church,  and  this  view  of  the  original  identity 
of  bishops  and  presbyters  was  of  no  practical  import- 
ance.    It  was  not  till  after  the  Reformation  that  it 

was  attacked.    Michael  de  Medina,  about  A.  D.  1570, 

_ ...^^ 1... .--.--....  ....„,^^ 


58  CnURClI   GOVERNMENT. 

does  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  those  fathers  were 
essentially  heretics ;  but  adds,  that  out  of  respect  for 
these  fathers,  this  heresy  in  them  is  not  to  be  con- 
demned. Bellarmine  declares  this  a  'very  incon- 
siderate sentiment.'  Thenceforth  all  Catholics,  as 
well  as  English  Episcopalians,  maintain  an  original 
difference  between  bishop  and  presbyter." 

Pages  might  be  filled  with  authorities  to  prove  that 
the  prerogatives  afterward  limited  to  bishops  originally 
pertained  to  presbyters,  especially  the  one  now  con- 
sidered by  prelatists  the  most  important — the  power  of 
ordination.  For  the  Scriptural  and  pj-imitive  examples 
we  must  refer  the  reader  to  Bangs'  Original  Church, 
No.  5 ;  and  for  still  further  authorities,  to  Coleman's 
Primitive  Church,  chap.  vi.  The  example  of  the 
church  of  Alexandria  furnishes  a  complete  vindica- 
tion of  Mr.  Wesley's  ordination  of  the  American 
bishops.  The  following  is  Goode's  translation  of 
the  account  given  by  Eut^[chius  of  the  case  of  the 
Alexandrian  Church : — 

"  His  words  are  these  :  after  mentioning  that  Mark 
the  evangelist  went  and  preached  at  Alexandria,  and 
appointed  Ilananias  the  first  patriarch  there,  he  adds, 
*  Moreover  he  appointed  twelve  presbyters  with  Ha- 
nanias,  who  were  to  remain  with  the  patriarch,  so 
that,  when  the  patriarchate  was  vacant,  they  might 
elect  one  of  the  twelve  presbyters,  upon  whose  head 
the  other  eleven  might  place  their  hands  and  bless 
him,  [or  invoke  a  blessing  upon  him,]  and  create  him 
patriarch,  and  then  choose  some  excellent  man,  and 
appoint  him  presbyter  with  themselves  in  the  place 
of  him  who  was  thus  made  patriarch,  that  thus  there 
might  always  be  twelve.    Nor  did  this  custom  respect- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  59 

ing  the  presbyters,  namely,  that  they  should  create 
their  patriarchs  from  the  twelve  presbyters,  cease  at 
Alexandria  until  the  times  of  Alexander,  patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  who  was  of  the  number  of  the  three  hun- 
dred and  eighteen,  [bishops  at  Nice.]  But  he  forbade 
the  presbyters  to  create  the  patriarch  for  the  future, 
and  decreed  that  when  the  patriarch  was  dead,  the 
bishops  should  meet  together  and  ordam  the  patriarch. 
Moreover  he  decreed,  that  on  a  vacancy  of  the  patri- 
archate they  should  elect,  either  from  any  part  of  the 
country,  or  from  those  twelve  presbyters,  or  others,  as 
circumstances  might  prescribe,  some  excellent  man, 
and  create  him  patriarch.  And  thus  that  ancient 
custom,  by  which  the  patriarch  used  to  be  created 
by  the  presbyters,  disappeared,  and  in  its  place  suc- 
ceeded the  ordinance  for  the  creation  of  the  patriarch 
by  the  bishops." 

Many  of  the  best  standards  of  the  Anglican  Church 
have  admitted  the  right  of  presbyters  to  ordain,  and 
their  identity  in  order  with  bishops.  Neale,  in  his 
History  of  the  Puritans,  declares  that  the  reformers 
under  King  Edward  "believed  but  two  orders  of 
churchmen  in  Holy  Scripture,  bishops  and  deacons; 
and,  consequently,  that  bishops  and  priests  [presby- 
ters] were  but  different  ranks  or  degi'ees  of  the  same 
order."  Acting  on  this  principle,  "they  gave  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  to  foreign  churches,  and  to 
ministers  who  had  not  been  ordained  by  bishops." — 
Coleman's  Prim.  Church,  chap.  vi.  The  proofs  of 
this  assertion  are  so  numerous,  that  we  can  only  refer 
to  them.  The  "  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,"  known 
also  as  the  "  Bishop's  Book,"  was  prepared  by  Cran- 
mer,  Latimer,  and  eight  other  bishops,  at  the  command 


60  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

of  the  king.  This  work  affirms  "that  in  the  New 
Testament  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  degrees 
or  orders,  but  only  of  deacons  (or  ministers)  and  of 
priests  (or  bishops.)"  Two  archbishops,  nineteen 
bishops,  and  the  lower  house  of  convocation,  sub- 
scribed to  this  work.  The  composition  of  the  book 
was  most  deliberate  and  cautious.  A  meeting  of  the 
highest  authorities  of  the  church  was  appointed  to 
determine  important  questions  of  religion.  These 
questions  were  classified  under  heads,  and  apportioned 
to  the  bishops  and  learned  divines.  Each  wrote  his 
answers  separately,  and  at  a  fixed  time  reported  them 
in  an  assembly  of  all,  and  then  they  discussed  their 
variations  of  opinion,  till  they  could  concur  in  a  com- 
mon report  to  be  made  to  the  convocation.  At  one 
of  these  meetings,  held  in  1537,  a  paper  was  prepared, 
called  "A  Declaration  of  the  Functions  and  Divine 
Institution  of  Bishops  and  Priests."  It  was  signed  by 
Cranmer,  and  many  bishops  and  other  divines,  and 
declares  that  "in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no 
mention  made  of  any  degrees  or  distinction  in  orders, 
but  only  of  deacons  (or  ministers)  and  priests  (or 
bishops.)"  In  1540,  a  commission,  with  Cranmer 
presiding,  affirms  "that  the  Scripture  makes  ex- 
press mention  of  only  two  orders,  priests  and 
deacons."* 

"The  Necessary  Erudition  of  a  Christian  Man," 
approved  by  parliament  in  1543^  and  prefaced  by  an 
epistle  from  the  king,  declares  "that  priests  [presby- 
ters'] and  bishops  are,  by  God's  law,  one  and  the  same, 
and  that  the  powers  of  ordination  and  excommunica- 
tion belong  equally  to  both,"  and  under  Elizabeth  it 
*  See  Hall's  Puritans  and  their  Principles,  pp.  44,  45. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  61 

was  enacted  by  parliament  "that  the  ordination  of 
foreign  churches  should  be  held  vaHd." 

Lord  King  affirms,  in  his  Primitive  Church :  "  As 
for  ordination,  I  find  clearer  proofs  of  presbyters  or- 
daining than  of  their  administering  the  Lord's  sup- 
per."— Chap,  iv,  p.  67. 

Stillingfleet  asserts:  "It  is  acknowledged  by  the 
stoutest  champions  of  episcopacy,  before  these  late 
unhappy  divisions,  that  ordination  perfoimed  by  pres- 
byters, in  case  of  necessity,  is  valid." 

Archbishop  Usher,  being  asked  by  Charles  L,  in 
the  Isle  of  Wight,  whether  he  found  in  antiquity  that 
^^ presbyters  alone  did  ordain"  answered,  "Yes,"  and 
that  he  would  show  his  majesty  more — even  where 
preshyters  alone  successively  ordained  bishops;  and 
brought,  as  an  instance  of  this,  the  presbyters  of  Alex- 
andria choosing  and  making  their  own  bishop,  from 
the  days  of  Mark  till  Heraclas  and  Dionysius.  (  CoU' 
marCs  Prim.  Church.) 

Whittaker,  of  Cambridge,  asserts,  as  the  opinion  of 
the  reformers,  that  "  presbyters  being,  by  divine  right, 
the  same  as  bishops,  they  might  warrantably  set  other 
presbyters  over  the  churches  J* 

Bishop  Forbes  declares  "  presbyters  have,  by  divine 
right,  the  power  of  ordaining,  as  well  as  of  preaching 
and  baptizing." 

The  episcopacy  of  the  Methodist  Church  is  pre- 
cisely in  accordance  with  the  foregoing  views,  that  is, 
it  is  presbyterian,  our  bishops  being  considered  but 
presbyters  in  order,  differing  from  presbyters  only  in 
office,  as  primi  inter  pares,  first  among  equals.  Ordi- 
nation is  limited  to  them  only  as  a  delegated  power 
from  the  presbyters,  and  simply  for  considerations  of 


62  cnuRCn  government. 

convenience.  Provision  is  made  in  our  Discipline  for 
the  resumption  of  the  power  by  presbyters  in  certain 
exigencies. 

We  have,  then,  an  overwhelming  amount  of  the 
highest  aullioriiio-;,  aiuit  nt  and  modern,  in  evidence 
of  the^fact  (hat  the  Christian  ministry?  as  recognized 
by  the  primitive  church,  consisted  of  but  two  orders, 
preshyters  and  deacons. 


i~   / -  0  - 
CHAPTER  VI. 

APOSTOLICAL   SUCCESSION. 

The  true  succession — Prelatical  succession — It  cannot  be  proved 
— Objections  to  it. 

If  we  have  succeeded  in  proving  the  temporary 
character^ of  the  apostolate,  and  the  primitive  identity 
of  bishops  and  presbyters,  in  respect  to  order,  we  have 
equally  disproved  the  apostolic  succession,  so  called; 
but  as  this  doctrine  is  the  basis  of  the  arrogance  and 
pretension  of  the  prelatical  system,  we  submit  some 
further  remarks  on  it. 

There  is  a  qualified  sense  in  which  it  may  be  said 
that  there  is  a  succession  in  the  Christian  ministry — 
the  sense  in  which  that  term  is  applicable  to  the  iiilers 
of  a  state.  The  state  dies  not,  though  its  administra- 
tors pass  away.  God  has  always  maintained  a  minis- 
try in  his  church,  though  changing  from  generation  to 
generation.  Theu'  succession  depends  not,  however, 
on  any  personally  transmitted  virtue  or  authority,  but 
upon  his  divine  and  inward  call,  and  the  appointment  of 
his  providence.    The  true  successors  of  the  apostles  do 


CHUliOH  GOVERNMENT.  63 

not  succeed  them  in  thej^rerogatives  whicli  constituted 
their_jpecial^ffice — ^their^SiDecial  authority  to  found  '- 
and  supervise  the  general  church — their  special  power  ^ 
to  work  miracles — their  jglenary  inspiration  for  the  5 
completion  of  the  sacred  canon — their  absolute  author-  H 
ity  to  appoint  jmstors,  to  excommunicate  delinquents,  ^J 
and  determine  infallibly  ecclesiastical  questions.  A 
genuine  successor  of  the  apostles  is  he  who  has  their 
;.  X  evangelical  character — their  consecration  to  God,  their 

3,  self-denial  and  disinterested  zeal — and  this  character 
founded  in  an  apostolic  experience — ^I'epentance  for  sin, 
faith  in  Christ,  the  renovation  of  the  heai't,  the  indwell-  | 

ij.  ing  and  fruits  of  the  spirit,  with  a  divine  call  to  preach  | 
r^  ^^  the  word,  and  a  ftiithful  adherence  to,  and  promulga-J\ 
tion  of,  the  apostolic  doctrines. 

But  what  is  the  succession  claimed  by  prelatists? 
It  is  an  unbroken  series  of  ordinations,  through  the 
successive  bishops  of  the  church,  up_to  the  apostles; 
ordinations  which,  by  this  unbroken  series,  possess  a 
mysterious  virtue,  through  which  the  sacraments  and 
all  ministerial  functions  are  rendered  valid,  and  this, 
too,  without  reference  to  the  moral  character  of  the 
administrators.  Some  of  the  greatest  moral  monsters  ; 
of  the  race  have  been  important  links  in  the  chain,  yet 
their  ministerial  functions  were  fully  vahd ;  while  the  j 
ordinations  of  such  men  as  Luther,  Calvin,  Wesley,  &c., 
were  utterly  invalid,  and  the  sacraments  performed  by 
their  successors,  thus  ordained,  were  surreptitious,  and 
without  divine  sanction,  the  churches  which  they 
formed  are  not  true  churches,  and  have  not  the  divine 
ordinances ;  but  they  alone  are  the  true  church  who  \ 
have  the  succession,  though  they  may  be  composed,  as 
they  unquestionably  have  been,  to  a  great  extent,  of 


6i  cnuRcn  government. 

worldly  and  profligate  men.    We  proceed  to  state  some 
objections  to  this  extraordinaiy  position. 

1.  The  first  is,  that  the  assumed  scries  of  ordinations 
cannot  be  proved.     An  able  critic  in  the  Edinburgh 
!  Review  (1843)  says:  "Whether  we  consider  the  pal- 
I  pabj[e  absurdity  of  tliis_doctrine,  its  utter  destitution  of 
I  historical  evidence,  or  the  outrage  it  implies  on  all 
Christian  charity,  it  is  equally  revolting.     The  ai'gu- 
I  ments  against  it  are  infinite ;  the  evidence  for  it  abso- 
lutely nothing.     It  rests  not  upon  one  doubtful  assump- 
tion, but  upon  fifty.     First,  the  very  basis  on  which  it 
rests — the  claim  of  episcopacy  itself  to  be  considered 

•  undoubtedly  and  exclusively  of  apostolical  origin — has 

•  been  most  fiercely  disputed  by  men  of  equal  erudition 
and  acuteness,  and,  so  far  as  can  be  judged,  of  equal 
integrity  and  piety." 

"  Again,  who  can  certify  that  this  gift  has  been  in- 
corruptibly  transmitted  through  the  impurities,  here- 
sies, and  ignorance  of  the  dark  ages  ?  Is  there  nothing 
that  can  invalidate  orders  ?  The  chances  are  infinite 
that  there  have  been  flaws  somewhere  or  other  in  the 
long  chain  of  succession ;  and,  as  no  one  knows  where 
the  fatal  breach  may  have  been,  it  is  sufficient  to  spread 
universal  panic  through  the  whole  church.  What 
bishop  can  be  sure  that  he  and  his  predecessors  in  the 
same  line  have  always  been  duly  consecrated  ?  or  what 
presbyter  that  he  was  ordained  by  a  bishop  who  had 
a  right  to  ordain  ?"  "  But  the  difficulties  do  not  end 
here.  It  is  asked  how  a  man,  who  is  no  true  Chris- 
tian, can  be  a  true  Christian  minister  ?  how  he,  who  is 
not  even  a  disciple  of  Christ,  can  be  a  genuine  succes- 
sor of  the  apostles." 
,      "  Since  the  first  century,  not  less,  in  all  probability, 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  65  | 

than  a  hundred  thousand  persons  have  exercised  the 
functions  of  bishops.  That  many  of  these  have  not 
been  bishops  by  apostolic  succession,  is  quite  certain.  _ 
Hooker  admits  that  deviations  from  the  general  rule  I 
have  been  frequent ;  and,  with  a  boldness  worthy  of  j 
his  high  and  statesman-like  intellect,  pronounces  them  I 
to  have  been  often  justifiable."  *^ 

Aj;chbijhop_Whatelj  declares :  "  If  a  man  consider 
it  as  highly  prohahle  that  the  particular  minister  at 
whose  hands  he  receives  the  sacred  ordinances  is  really 
apostolically  descended,  this  is  the  very  utmost  point 
to  which  he  can,  with  any  semblance  of  reason,  attain ; 
and  the  more  he  reflects  and  inquires,  the  more  cause 
for  hesitation  wiU  he  find.  There  is  not  a  minister  in 
Christendom  who  is  able  to  trace  up,  with  any  approach 
to  certainty,  his  0"\vn  spiritual  pedigree."  "  If  a  bishop 
has  not  been  duly  consecrated  ...  his  ordinations  are 
null ;  and  so  are  the  ministrations  of  those  ordained  by 
him  .  .  .  and  so  on  without  end.  The  poisonous  taint 
of  informality,  if  it  once  creep  m  undetected,  will  spread 
the  infection  of  nullity  to  an  indefinite  extent.  And 
who  can  pronounce  that  during  the  .  . .  dark  ages,  no 
such  taint  was  ever  introduced  ?  Irregularities  could 
not  have  been  wholly  excluded  without  a  perpetual 
miracle.  Amidst  the  numerous  corruptions  of  doctrine 
and  of  practice,  and  gross  superstitions,  that  crept  in 
...  we  find  descriptions  not  only  of  the  profound  igno- 
rance and  profligacy  of  many  of  the  clergy,  but  of  the 
grossest  irregularities  in  respect  of  discipline  and  form. 
We  read  of  bishops  consecrated  when  mere  children — 
of  men  officiating  who  barely  knew  their  letters — of 
prelates  expelled,  and  others  put  in  their  place,  by  vio-  ^ 
lence — of  illiterate  and  profligate  laymen,  and  habitual  \ 


66  CnURCII  GOVERNMENT. 

drunkards,  admitted  to  holy  orders ; — and,  in  short,  of 
the  prevalence  of  every  kind  of  disorder  and  indecency. 
It  is  inconceivable  that  any  one,  even  moderately  ac- 
quainted with  history,  can  feel  .  .  .  any  approach  to 
certainty,  that  amidst  all  this  confusion  and  corruption, 
every  requisite  form  was,  in  every  instance,  strictly 
adhered  to ;  and  that  no  one  not  duly  consecrated  or 
ordained  was  admitted  to  sacred  offices." 

Eusebius,  the  earliest  uninspired  liistorian  of  the 
church,  though  he  sets  out  with  the  design  of  tracing 
the  succession,  assures  us  that  it  is  matter  of  much 
doubt,  and  that  he  had  but  slight  authorities  to  depend 
on  respecting  even  the  definite  fields  of  the  apostles,  if 
they  had  any.  He  assures  us  he  had  to  rely  on  mere 
report ;  and  respecting  their  successors,  he  says :  "  Who 
they  were  .  .  .  that,  imitating  these  apostles,  (meaning 
Peter  and  Paul,)  were  by  them  thought  worthy  to 
govern  the  churches  which  they  planted,  is  no  easy 
thing  to  tell,  excepting  such  as  may  be  collected  from 
St.  Paul's  own  words." — Ecc.  Hist.,  lib.  iii,  ch.  iv. 

Bishop  Stillingfleet  remarks :  "  If  the  successors  of 
the  apostles,  by  the  confession  of  Eusebius,  are  not 
certainly  to  be  discovered,  then  what  becomes  of  that 
unquestionable  line  of  succession  of  the  bishops  of 
several  churches,  and  the  large  diagrams  made  of  the 
apostolical  churches,  with  every  one's  name  set  down 
in  his  order,  as  if  the  writer  had  been  Clarencieux  to 
the  apostles  themselves?  Are  all  the  great  outcries 
of  apostolical  tradition,  of  personal  succession,  of  un- 
questionable records,  resolved  at  last  into  the  Scripture 
itself,  by  him  from  whom  all  these  long  pedigrees  are 
fetched  ?  Then  let  succession  know  its  place,  and  learn 
to  veil  bonnet  to  the  Scriptures ;  and,  withal,  let  men 


£AAl/^A.vv4-n. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  67 

take  heed  of  overreaching  themselves,  when  they  ) 
would  bring  down  so  large  a  catalogue  of  single  bishops, 
from  the  first  and  purest  times  of  the  church,  for  it 
wiU  be  hard  for  others  to  believe  them  when  Eusebius 
professeth  it  so  hard  to  find  them."  ~ 

Calamy,  to  show  what  little  dependence  can  be  j  i-^ 
placed  on  these  tables,  gives  a  brief  view,  from  the  ; 
representations  of  ancient  writers,  of  the  "  strange  con- 
fusion" of  the  first  part  of  the  tables  of  the  three  most 
celebrated  churches  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Rome : 
— "  Tlie  church  of  Alexandria  has  been  generally  re-  v. .) 
presented  as  founded  by  St.  Mark,  and  yet  Eusebius 
speaks  of  it  but  as  an  uncertain  report.  '  They  say  it 
was  so ;'  but  he  does  not  tell  us  who  oaid  so,  nor  upon 
what  grounds.  However,  upon  this  slender  authority 
(^  Hhey  say  so/  many  others  after  him  have  ventured 
to  affirm  it  as  an  indisputable  fact,  that  St.  Mark  was 
actually  the  founder  of  this  church.  However,  even 
in^this  there  is  no  perfect  agreement.  Some  contend 
that  he  was  there  with  St.  Peter ;  others,  that  he  was 
there  alone,  being  sent  by  St.  Peter;  others,  that  he 
was  there  only  once;  and  others,  that  he  returned 
again  after  his  first  visit.  As  to  the  time  of  his  arri- 
val, the  period  of  his  ministry,  and  the  year  in  which 
this  church  was  first  founded,  all  its  records  are  totally 
silent ;  and  the  famous  Clement,  from  whom  we  might 
expect  some  information,  throws  not  a  single  ray  of 
light  upon  this  subject. 

"  But  even  supposing  St.  Mark,  under  all  these  dis- 
advantages, to  have  been  seated  in  this  church  on  his 
throne  of  polished  ivory,  as  the  fabulous  legends  report, 
and  that  he  wrote  his  Gospel  in  it,  the  difficulties  will 
increase  when  we  proceed  to  his  successors.     His  im- 


C8  cnuRcn  government. 

mediate  follower  on  'the  throne  of  ivory'  has  several 
names  given  to  him ;  and  as  to  those  who  come  after, 
the  representation?  and  accounts  are  too  various  and 
conflicting  to  be  credited  as  records  of  a  fact. 

'•  The  line  of  succession  which  proceeds  from  Antioch 
is  involved  in  equal,  if  not  still  greater,  difficulties  than 
that  of  Alexandria.  Eusebius,  St.  Chrysostomj  St. 
Jerome,  Pope  Leo,  Innocent,  Gelasius,  and  Gregory 

I  the  Great,  all  tell  us  that  this  church  was  founded  by 
St.  Peter ;  but  we  leara,  from  superior  authority,  that 
*  they  which  were  scattered  abroad  upon  the  persecu- 
tion of  Stephen  traveled  as  far  as  Antioch,  preaching 
the  word  to  the  Jews  only.'  Acts  ix,  19.  Tliis  seems 
to  have  been  the  occasion  of  introducing  Christianity 
at  Antioch.  After  this,  as  the  converts  needed  some 
one  to  confinn  them  in  the  faith  which  they  had  newly 
embraced,  the  church  at  Jerusalem  sent  forth  Barna- 
bas, not  Peter,  that  he  should  go  as  far  as  Antioch ; 
and  when  Barnabas  found  that  he  needed  some  further 
assistance,  instead  of  applying  to  Peter,  he  *  departed 
to  Tarsus  to  seek  Saul ;  and  when  he  had  found  him, 
he  brought  him  to  Antioch.     And  it  came  to  pass,  that 

,  a  whole   year  they  assembled   themselves  with  the 

I  church,  and  taught  much  people.  And  the  disciples 
were  called  Christians  first  at  Antioch.'  Acts  ix,  25, 

I  26.  In  all  these  transactions  we  have  not  one  word 
about  Peter ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  intimations  ap- 
pear strongly  in  favor  of  Paul,  as  the  first  founder  of 
the  church  in  this  place. 

"  We  read,  indeed,  in  another  place,  that  St.  Peter 
was  at  Antioch,  but  the  circumstance  is  not  mentioned 
to  his  honor ;  for  St.  Paul,  observing  the  offense  he 

'  had  given  by  his  dissimulation,  withstood  him  to  the 


CHURCH   GOVERNMENT.  ^ 

face,  which  we  can  hardly  suppose  he  would  have  done  j 
if  Peter  had  been  the  founder  of  the  church,  and  if  he  ' 
now  stood  at  the  head  of  his  own  diocese. 

"  Baronius,  indeed,  aware  of  these  difficulties,  is  very  j 
willing  that  St.  Peter  should  resign  his  bishopric  at 
Antioch,  upon  condition  that  St.  Paul,  acting  as  his 
vicar,  be  allowed  to  have  erected  one  there  by  his  au- 
thority.    But  even  this  will  not  do ;  neither  can  the  ; 
supposition  be  reconciled  with  the  positive  declara-  i 
tions  of  those  who  assert  that  he  was  a  long  time  bishop  i 
there.  -^ 

"  If  we  turn  from  the  apostles  to  their  successors  in  \  ^^^ 
this  church,  we  shall  find  ourselves  equally  destitute  \ 
of  firm  footing.      Baronius  assures  us,  that  the  apos- ;  ^ 
ties  left  two  bishops  behind  them  in  this  place,  one  for 
the  Jews,  and  the  other  for  the  Gentiles.     These  were 
Ignatius  and  Euodius.     Eusebius  says  expressly,  that  \ 
Euodius  was  the  first  bishop  of  Antioch,  and  that  Ig-  j 
natius  succeeded  him.    But,  on  the  contrary,  St.  Chry- } 
sostom, Theodoret, and  the  authorof  the  Constitutions, 
declare,  with  equal  assurance,  that  St.  Peter  and  St.  i 
Paul  both  laid  their  hands  on  Ignatius  ;  but,  unfortu- 1 
nately,  it  appears  that  St.  Peter  was  dead  before  Igna-  J 
tins  was  bishop  in  this  place.  •- 

^  The_  settlement  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  its     q^  \ 
much-extolled  apostolical  succession  of  bishops,  is  in-  '■ 
volved,  if  possible,  in  still  greater  perplexity,  confusion, 
and  disorder.     According  to  some,  this  church  was 
founded  by  St.  Peter ;  others  say  it  was  by  St.  Paul ; 
some  introduce  both;   and  others  assert  that  it  waSj 
neither.     Of  this  latter  opinion  were  the  learned  SaI-1 
masius  and  others.     But  let  us  allow  that  St.  Peter} 
actually  was  at  Rome,  of  what  advantage  will  Jthis  be  i 


0 


70  CnURCII  GOVERNMENT. 

to  the  succession  of  bishops  ?  If  Peter  was  there^  ^t 
is  equally  certain  that  St.  Paul  was  there  also ;  and 
under  these  circumstiinces  it  will  be  hard  to  detemiine 
who  was  bishop.  St.  Paul  was  there  first,  and  on  this 
account  he  is  preferred  by  many  of  the  ancients  to  St. 
Peter ;  and  in  the  seal  of  that  church,  the  former  is 
placed  on  the  right  hand,  and  the  latter  on  the  left. 
But  still  this  does  not  determine  who  was  bishop. 
To  accommodate  this  business,  they  have  agreed  to 
make  them  both  bishops ;  and  this  unhappily  destroys 
the  unity  of  the  episcopate,  by  placing  two  supremes 

^t  the  same  time  in  the  same  church. 

"But  whatever  uncertainty  may  accompany  the 
question  as  to  the  first  bishop,  those  who  succeeded 
him  are  known  with  even  less^  assurance.  On  this 
point,  the  ancients  and  the  moderns  are  strongly  di- 
vided. Some  will  have  Cletus  expunged  out  of  the 
table,  a3  being  the  same  with  Anacletus ;  and  thus 
fixing  Linus  at  the  head  of  the  succession,  cause  him 

I  to  be  followed  by  Anacletus  and  Clemens.  In  this 
manner  Irenoeus  represents  the  case.  Others  will  have 
Cletus  and  Anacletus  to  be  both  retained  as  distinct 
bishops,  having  Linus  standing  between  them.  At  the 
same  time,  in  some  of  the  ancient  catalogues,  Ana- 
cletus is  excluded ;  and,  what  is  remarkable,  he  is  not 
to  be  found  at  this  day  in  the  canons  of  the  mass,  and 
yet,  in  the  Roman  Martyrology,  both  Cletus  and  Ana- 
cletus are  distinctly  mentioned,  and  a  different  ac- 
count is  given  of  the  birth,  pontificate,  and  martyrdom 
of  each. 

■•  "  In  the  catalogue  of  Epiphanius,  the  early  bishops 
of  Rome  are  placed  in  the  following  orders :  Peter  and 
Paul,  Linus,  Cletus,  Clemens,  and  Euaristus.     But  in 


■^■.A 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  71 

the  catalogue  of  Bucher  they  stand  according  to  thel 
following  arrangement:  Linus,  Cletus,  Clemens,  and 
Euaristus;  and  three  names  are  entirely  omitted, 
namely,  Anicetus,  Eleutherius,  and  Zephyrinus.  And 
what  shall  we  do  with  the  famous  Clement  ?  Does  he 
style  himself  bishop  of  Rome  ?  Or  how  came  he  to  ■ 
forget  his  title  ?  ! 

"  It  has  been  said  by  some,  that  after  he  had  been  [ 
St.  Paul's  companion,  and  was  chosen  by  Peter  to  be  | 
bishop  of  Rome,  he  gave  place  to  Linus.     But  others! 
assert,  with  equal  confidence,  and  perhaps  with  equal, 
authority,  that  Linus  and  Clemens,  and  others,  that; 
Linus  and  Cletus,  were  bishops   at  the  same  time.  • 
TertuUian,  Ruffinu^,  and  some  others,  place  Clement , 
next  to  St.  Peter ;  Irenaeus  and  Eusebius  set  Anacletus  ■ 
before  him ;  and  Optatus  makes  both  Anacletus  and  j 
Cletus  to  precede  him.     And,  finally,  as  though  these 
strenuous   defenders   of  apostolical   succession   were 
destined  to  render  it  ridiculous  by  the  various  me 
thods  they  have  adopted  to  defend  this  tender  string, 
Austin,  Damasus,  and  others,  will  not  allow  him  to 
grace  the  list,  until  the  names  of  Anacletus,  Cletus, 
and  Linus,  have  appeared.     Such  is  the  foundation  of 
apostolical  succession  in  the  Church  of  Rome !    Surely 
it  can  be  no  breach  of  charity  to  assert  that 

'  The  bold  impostor 
Looks  not  more  silly  when  the  cheat's  found  out.' 

"  It  was  not,  therefore,  without  reason  that  Bis^p 
Stillingfleet  observed:  'The  succession  here  is  as 
muddy  as  the  Tiber  itself;  and  if  the  line  fails  us 
here,  we  have  little  cause  to  pin  our  faith  upon  it,  as 
to  the  certainty  of  any   particular  form  of  church 


72 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 


government,  which  can  be  drawn  from  the  help  of 
.the  records  of  the  primitive  church.' — Irenicum,  p. 
[312.  It  cannot,  therefore,  but  be  evident  to  every 
unprejudiced  mind,  that,  since  such  confusion  and  dis- 
order aj)peai'  in  the  front  of  these  tables  of  succession, 
where  we  might  most  naturally  expect  the  greatest 
regularity  and  certainty,  no  dependence  can  be  placed 
on  theu-  authority." 

2.  We^jectto  tliis  doctrine,  that  while  the  series 
of  the  succession  is  thus  doubtful,  a  failure  in  it  involves 
most  disastrous  consequences — none  less  tEanthe  in- 
validity of  the  ministration^  of  all  wIkj  liav^  not  re- 
ceived  authority  tliroiigli   it.      Hooker,   a-^   wc  have 
I  seen,  admits   that  deviation-   iVcni   tlie  genuine  rule 
[have  been  frequent.     These  deviations  have  not  only 
foccurred  among  the  sul^ordinate  bishops,  but  in  the 
highest   department    of   the    succession — among    the 
bishops  of  Rome — the  popes  themselves.    There  were 
sometimes  two,  and  even  three,  popes  at  once,  and,  at 
Uie  same  time,   excommunicating   and  cursing  each 
other  most  lustily.     During  these  schisms  there  was 
either   no   true  pope,  or  no  c_ertain  one,  and  hence 
a  chasm  in  the  chain.     The   Council  of  Basil  ^pro- 
nounced Eugenius  a  schismatic  ;  y*t  from  liini  there 
descended  other  popes,  who,  to  this  day,  are  his  suc- 
cessors— who,  according  to  their  own  canons,  possess 
no  pontifical  authority.     "Where  is  their  apostolic  suc- 
cession  then  ?     Again,  several  popes  have  been  here- 
tics.     Pope   Liberius  was  an  Arian ;    Sylvester,   a 
magician ;  John  XXII.  taught  the  sleep  of  the  soul 
between  death  and  the  resurrection  ;  and  John  XXIII. 
j  believed  the  soul  died  with  the  body,  as  the  Council 
i  of  Constance  says  respecting  him.    A  heretic  cannot 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  73 

transmit  orders,  according  to  the  Church  of  Rome;^ 
and,  hence,  on  her  own  principles,  her  succession  is ! 

gone-  I 

Now  a  deviation  in  one  instance  may  extend  through^ 
ages,  and  be  ramified^ver  aU  Christendom.     "  The 
ultimate  consequence,"  says  Whately,  "must  be,  that 
any  one  who  sincerely  believes  that  his  claim  to  the  j 
benefits  of  the  gospel  covenant  depends  on  his  own! 
minister's  claim  to  the  supposed  sacramental  virtue  of 
true  ordination,  and  this  again,  on  perfect  apostolical  ( 
succession — must  be   involved,   in   proportion  as  he/ 
reads,  and  inquires,  and  reflects  on  the  subject,  m  the ) 
most  distressing  doubt  and  perplexity."     We  put  the  ■ 
question  to  any  candid  and  thoughtful  man,  Can  it  be 
possible  that  a  jtosition  so  capable  of  ambiguity,  so 
actually  uncertain,  and  a  deviation  from  which,  Avhile 
it  is  a  matter  of  such  liability,  is,  at  the  same  time,  so 
disastrous,  can  it  be  possible  Jthat  such  a  jDosition  has 
_been  made,  hj_  the  infinitely  wise  and  gracious  Head 
of  the  church,  essential  to  its  validity  and  authority  ?  , 
Assuredly  it  camiot  be. 

3.  The  prelatical  doctrine  of  succession  tends  to  give 
undue  importance  to  mere  rites  and  forms.  It  claims, 
indeed,  that  a  spiritual  and  mysterious  virtue  inheres 
in  the  unbroken  succession ;  but  this  virtue  is  strictly 
and  invariably  dependent  upon  a  determinate  process 
— it  can  be  transmitted  only  by  a  given  class  of  men, 
through  a  given  class  of  men,  and  by  a  given  means. 
It  must  be  done  by  ordination,  done  by  bishops,  and 
transmitted  through  bishops.  A  bishop  can  ordain 
presbyters,  but  cannot  give  them  the  power  to  ordain 
as  such;  he  must  ordain  other  bishops  in  order  to 
transmit  this  power.  And  this  marvelous  virtue,  so 
"  4  '~ 


74  CHURCH    GOVERNMENT. 

marvelously  inherent  in  a  process  which  scarcely 
admits  of  variableness  or  shadow  or  turning,  may  be 
communicated — nay,  most  certainly  has  been,  if  the 


doctrine  is  true,  hy  men  whose  lives  have  been  a  com- 
)  plication  of  the  most  enormous  crimes  known  in  our 
'  world,  and  to  men  equally  detestable.  The  rival  pos- 
sessors of  the  mysterious  virtue  have  superseded  each 
other  by  cabals,  by  bloody  conflicts,  by  assassinations, 
and  yet  they  have  unfailingly  possessed  and  trans- 
mitted it  in  all  its  purity  and  power.  And  how? 
AVliy  simply  and  solely  by  the  fact  that  a  certain 
form,  called  ordination,  was  performed  by  a  certain 
ecclesiastical  officer,  wlio,  in  his  turn,  had  been  treated 
in  like  manner  by  a  certain  predecessor!  Is  it  a 
wonder  that  strong-minded  men  turn  to  infidelity,  and 
scorn  our  faith,  when  it  thus  arrays  itself  in  absurdity? 
Could  it  more  effectually  expose  itself  to  the  ridicule 
of  mankind  than  by  such  antiquated  and  preposterous 
assumptions  ? 
(V  This  exaggerated  importance  given  to  mere  rites  or 
offices  is  in  contrast  with  the  whole^  ^Pl^J^  ^^  Chris- 
tianity. Christianity  has  its  rites,  simple  and  hallow- 
ed, but  teaches  them  with  a  latitude  in  respect  to  their 
mode,  which  shows  that  their  spirit,  not  their  letter, 
constitutes  thejr  importance.  The  genius  of  Christian- 
ity is  spiritual,  not  formal.  This  tenacity  for  modes 
destroys  its  spirituality ;  it  is  the  source  of  Puseyism, 
and  the  infinite  corruptions  of  Popery.  The  doctrine 
of  a  special  mysterious  virtue,  inherent  in  the  acts  of  a 
man,  because  of  a  specific  mode  of  appointment  to  his 
office,  is  but  a  step  from  the  doctrine  that  he  imparts 
a  special  virtue  to  the  sacraments,  by  which,  inde- 
pendently of  the  moral  temper  of  the  recipient,  they 


CHUKCH   GOVERNMENT. 


75 


save  his  soul ;  a  religion  of  forms  without  morals^ —  *? 
transubstantiation — the  adoration  of  the  host — implicit  ' 
reliance  on  the  mediation  of  the  priest,  and  numerous  . 
otlicr  delusions,  follow  in  the  train. 

4.  Not  only  is  the  doctrine  of  succession  contrary 
to  the  genius   of  C'lirisiiaiiilyj  l)ut  it  cannot  claim  a 
single  express  passage  of  the  Scriptures  for  its  sup- 
port.    This  doctrine,  as  we  have  seen,  is  assumed  as 
fundamental ;  the  validity  of  the  ministry,  of  the  sa-  \ 
craments,  of  the  whole  organization  of  the  church,  in  ^ 
fine,  depends  upon  it.     Without  it,  the  holiest  and 
ablest  of  men  are  not  genuine  ministers  of  Christ,  and 
the  most  devoted  and  useful  bodies  of  Christians  are 
noi   tnic-  cliurclic-,  ;i;)(l  can  hope  for  heaven  only  by 
the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God.     We  have  already' 
asked  the  question,  if  it  can  be  possible  that  a  mere 
historical  circumstance,  so  liable  to  uncertainty,  and  so 
actually  uncertain,  could  be  made,  by  God,  the  founda- 
\  tion  of  the  validity  and  authority  of  his  church  ?     We 
'noAv  ask  a  still  more  pressing  question,  namely,  Can  it 
be  possible  that  a  principle,  whose  integrity  is  so  fear- 
fully exposed,  and  yet  is  so  indispensably  necessary — 
the  basis  of  the  validity  of  the  ministerial  office — the 
validity  of  tlio  sacraments — the  validity  of  the  entire 
church — can  it  be  that  a  matter  of  such  importance  is 
left  to  be  ascertained  and  maintained  by  the  church, 
without  a  single  express  reference  to  it  in  the  whole 
revelation  of  God?    Where  is  there  such  a  reference ? X 
Can  an  unsophisticated  reader  of  the  sacred  volume  ' 
find  one  ?    The  essential  matters  of  salvation  are  plain  ; 
on  the  surface  of  the   Scriptures.     Men  of  common  ( 
sense  have  no  difficulty  in  learning  there  that  they  ( 
ai'e  sinners — that  they  can  be  saved  from  their  sins  / 


ClirUCII   GOVERNMENT. 


I  only  by  tlu'  atoncmnit — (liiit  llic  condition  of  this 
(  salvation  is  faith — that  they  should  pray — be  pure — 
assemble  themselves  to«^ether  for  worship — be  baj)- 
tized— commemorate  the  death  of  Christ  by  his  supper 
— have  the  word  preached  by  suitable  men,  &c. ;  but 
what  mind,  however  keen,  would,  without  i)revious 
prejudices,  be  able  to  detect  there  this  fundamental 
condition  of  the  validity  of  the  ministry,  the  sacra- 
ments, the  entire  church  ?  We  do  not  deny  that_it  is 
right,  as  a  matter  of  expediency  and  propriety,  that 
Christian  ministers  should,  wherever  practicable,  be 
set  apart  to  their  work  with  suitable  authority  from 


their  clerical  brethren.     But  where  do  the  Scriptures 
^  enjoin  even  this^?_  Where,  still  more,  do  they  enjoin 

1    +110+   rvTio   n^aca  r^nW    nf    tlw     r^^\',^]  ^{yy    gJij^U    haVC    pOWCr 

•o.  yet  fur- 
li:ive  such 


to  give  the  necessary  <anclioii.- ''     And  w) 
■ffier^  do  they  declare  that  th 


that  one  class  only  of  tli 


mil 


|)(»\ViT    > 


inexplicable  virtue  as  to  render  valid  and  ellicacious 
the  ministrations  of  the  candidate,  notwithstandijng  his 
total  want  of  moral  qualification  ?  And  where,  we  ask 
once  more,  do  they  declare^  that  deviations  from  this 
mere  form  shall  forfeit  the  ecclesiastical j^haracter  and 
covenant  claims  of  vast  bodies  of  Christian  men,  though 
they  may  extend  over  a  continent,  and  may  plant,  in 
)  aJi  the  world,  the  monuments  of  their  usefulness  and 
J  piety?  It  has  been  justly  said  by  Dr.  Woods,  that 
this  is  one  of  those  doctrines  which  need  only  to  be 
stated  to  appear  absurd. 

5.  Another  and  serious  objection  to  this  opinion  is 

its  essential  uncharitableness.     It  unchurches  most  of 

the  Protestant  world.    Unquestionably,  the  denomina- 

tions_who  deny  it  practically,  as  well  as  theoretically, 

Vare  more  devoted,  and  by  far  more  useful  at  present, 


CHURCH   GOVERNMENT.  77 

than  those  which  maintain  it._The  laborers  of  dissent- 
ing churches  are  found  scattered  all  over  the  foreign 
world,  and  are  most  efficient  at  home.     In  our  own 
country  they  vastly  preponderate  in  numbers  and  re- 
ligious exertions.     Yet  a  comparatively  limited  class 
stand  up  amid  them,  denouncing  them  as  destitute  of 
the  claims  of  a  true  church — refusing  to  recognize  \ 
their  sacraments,  and  excluding  their  large  ministry  t 
from  the  courtesies  due  to  genuine  ambassadors  of  ' 
Christ.     Is  it  said  that  numbers  are  no  proof  of  truth 
— that  a  wrong  cause  may  outnumber  a  good  one? 
Very  true.     If  we  had  merely  numerical  preponde- 1 
ranee,  the  reply  would  be  just.     Mohammedanism,  s 
Popery,  heathenism,  have  greater  numerical  strength  f 
than   Protestant  Christianity ;    but  if  they  had  also  j 
greater  piety  and  greater  usefulness,  then  jFould  the  j 
numerical  argument  be  undeniably  in  their  favor.    The 
effect  cannot  be  without  the  cause.     If  the  great  dis- 
senting^  bodies  have  all  the  spiritual  attributes  of  the 
true  church,  and  accomplish  all  its  legitimate  ends 
more  extensively  than  their  prelatical  opponents,  then 
certainly  they  have  a  more  valid  claim  to  be  considered 
the  true  church,  and  the  bigotry  which  brands  them 
witli^ecclesiasticai  bastardy  k  an  offense  against  God 
as  well  as  man.     An  opinion  which  logically  leads  to 
uncharitabieness,  so  contrary  to  the  whole  genius  of 
Christianity,  cannot  be  founded  on  Chi^stianity. 


78  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 


I.-    t-   J, 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   OFFICE   OF  DEACON. 

Derivation  of  the  office — What  was  it  1 — Evidence  from  the 
Scriptures — From  the  fathers — Controversy  respecting  it  not 
important. 

On  the  subjects  discussed  in  the  foregoing  pages  we 
are  at  variance  with  prelatical  Episcopalians,  and  agree, 
in  general,  with  Presbyterians.  There Js^^pne  ground, 
however,  where  we  correspond  with  the  former,  and 
dissent  from  the  latter.  We  refer  to  the  office  of 
deacons. 

The  controversy  on  this  subject  does  not  involve 
the  question  whether  or  not  such  an  office  existed  in 
the  early  church,  but  whether  it  was  lay  or  clerical. 
Our  Presbyterian  brethren  contend  that  it  was  the 
latter;  and  retain  it  only  in  that  form.  The  Scrijv 
tural  references  to  the  office  sustain,  we  think,  the 
position  that  deacons,  though  appointed  to  superintend 
certain  inferior  interests  of  the  church,  were,  never- 
theless, also  preachers  of  the  word — a  subordinate 
part  of  the  regular  ministry. 

The  office,  like  that  of  presbyters,  was  derived  from 
the  synagogue.  Three  deacons,  at  least,  officiated  in 
each  synagogue;  and  their  Hebrew  designation  im- 
plies that  they  were  to  "  nourish,  support,  and  govern" 
the  congregation.  (See  Clarke's  Com.,  Acts  vi,  4.) 
"  The  parnos,  or  deacon,  was  a  sort  of  judge  in  the 
synagogue,  and,  in  each,  doctrine  and  ^visdom  were 
required,  that  they  might  be  able  to  discern,  and  give 
right  judgment  in  thiAgs  both  sacred  and  civil     The 


CHUKCH   GOVERNMENT.  79 

chazan  and  shamash  were  also  a  sort  of  deacons. 
The  first  was  the  priest's  deputy,  and  the  last  was,  in 
some  cases,  the  deputy  of  this  deputy,  or  the  sub- 
deacon." — Ihid.  It  is  obvious  that  the  office  implied, 
to  the  Jewish  Christians,  among  whom  it  was  intro- 
duced, a  department  of  the  sacred  ministry,  though  a 
subordinate  one.  In  the  Epistles  (see  2  Cor.  vi,  4 ; 
Eph.  iii,  7 ;  Rom.  xv,  8 ;  Col.  i,  23)  the  title  is  ap- 
plied to  the  apostles,  and  to  Christ. 

Presbyterians  found  their  limitation  of  this  office  to 
mere  ceremonial  services,  on  the  consideration  that  it 
was  ostensibly  introduced  into  the  church  for  such 
purposes.  Acts  vi,  1-6.  Dr.  Bangs  {Original  Church, 
p.  306)  justly  remarks  on  this  point,  that  "if  any  man 
say  that  these  were  set  apart  for  the  purpose  of 
serving  tables,  let  him  remember  that  it  was  a  sort 
of  service  to  which  the  apostles  themselves  had  de- 
voted themselves  until  now,  and  therefore  it  could  not 
be  incompatible  with  the  ministerial  or  even  the  apos- 
tolic office,  and  hence  this  objection  makes  nothing 
against  the  position  that  these  deacons  were  also 
preachers  of  the  gospel." 

The  apostles  having  sustained  these  menial  cares 
of  the  church  until  their  duties  became  too  burden- 
some, ordered  the  appointment  of  subordinate  preach- 
ers, who,  while  ministering  in  the  temporalities  of  the 
Christians,  as  they  themselves  had,  might  also,  like 
them,  preach  the  word. 

The  niode^of  their  appointment  seems  to  iniply  that 
their  office  included  more  than  the  mere  service  of 
tables.  The  apostles  themselves  appointed  them  as 
they  did  other  pastors  in  the  church.  They  set  them 
apart  with  solemn  services  of  consecration — "When 


80  cnuRcn  governbient. 

they  had  prayed,  they  laid  their  hniids  vjjon  them  " — 
using  the  form  of  ordination,  which  they  borrowed 
from  the  synagogue,  for  the  consecration  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry. 

'  The  qualifications  required  of  them  would  seem,  by 
their  extraordinary  character,  to  imply  something  niore 
than  the  service  of  tables.  They  were  required  to  be 
men  of  "honest  report,"  which,  we  should  suppose, 
would  comprehend  the  necessary  responsibility  of  their 
temporal  duties ;  but  they  were  also  to  be  men  "/i^/ 
of  the  HOLY  GHOST  AND  WISDOM ;"  Dot,  it  is  supposable, 
for  the  purpose  merely  of  apportioning  food  among  the 
poor,  but  that  they  might  prudently  and  successfully 
supply  the  lack  of  service  on  the  part  of  the  apostles 
in  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  the  administration  of 
spiritual  discipline,  as  well  as  in  the  temporal  interests 
of  the  church. 

-  Accordingly,  we  find  Stephen  immediately  preach- 
ing the  truth,  not  only  before  the  council,  but  disput- 
ing with  the  Cyrenians,  Alexandrians,  and  Cilicians ; 
and  being  "full  of  faith  and  power,"  he  "did  great 
wonders  and  miracles  among  the  people."  We  have 
no  information  of  his  performing  similar  labors  before 
his  ordination,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
apostles. 

Philip  was  also  appointed  to  the  same  office  at  the 
same  time ;  and  we  have  recorded,  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apo?tlc?,  the  fact  that  he  "  went  down  to  Jerusalem 
2ii\(\.  jirtarJiod  Christ  even  to  them;"  and  "the  people 
with  one  accord  gave  heed  unto  the  things  which 
Philip  spake,  hearing  and  seeing  the  miracles  which 
he  did.  For  many  unclean  spirits,  crying  with  a 
loud  voice,  came  out  of  many  which  were  possessed 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  81 

with  tliem,  and  many  taken  with  palsies,  and  that 
were  lame,  were  healed.  And  there  was  great  joy  m 
that  city."  ' 

It  is  evident  that  deacons  ad.ministered  the  sacra- 
ments. "  When  they  believed  Philip,  preaching  the 
things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women."  Acts  viii,  2.  And  at  verse  26,  we  find  him 
baptizing  the  Ethiopian  eunuch.  In  Acts  xxi,  8,  we 
read  of  this  same  Philip,  "  which  was  one  of  the 
seven,"  as  an  "  evangelist." 

The  apostles,  in  giving  instructions  respecting  the""] 
qualifications  of  the  ministry,  refer  to  the  deacons  as  ■ 
well  as  £}'esby^ters.  They  existed  in  the  early  church 
as  a  portion  of  its  regufar  ministry,  and  the  fathers 
describe  their  office  to  be  such  as  we  have  inferred  it 
from  the  Scriptures.  TertuUian  tells  us  that  they 
"baptized  in  the  absence  of  the  bishop  and  presby- 
ters." They  are  commonly  represented  as  "  ministers 
in  the  word  of  God  " — "  ministers  of  the  mysteries  of 
Jesus  Christ,"  (^Ignatius  to  the  TroUians ;)  as  "  intrust- 
ed with  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,"  {Polycarp  to 
the  ^phesi^ms;)  as  "ministers  of  God  in  Christ," 
{?^ly9^^^2  J2.  ^^^  Philippians.)  The  church  gene- 
rally has  maintained,  from  the  apostolic  times,  the 
ofiice  of  deacon  in  the  manner  yet  retained  by  epis- 
copal bodies ;  and  no  time  can  be  designated  in 
which  it  was  perverted  from  a  lay  to  a  clerical  cha- 
racter. 

But  even   though   the   Presbyterian  view  of  the 

office  were  historically  correct,  it  does  not  affect  our 

right  to  render  it  a  clerical  order,  such  as  it  really  is 

in  Episcopal  churches.     The    Scriptures   set  us  the 

4* 


82  cnrRrii  covkrnmknt. 

example  of  such  a  clas"^  oliuiMic  s*  i-vaiits  in  tlic  clmiTh, 
but  tliey  do  not  enjoin  it.  Tlic  priinitiv*.*  C'liristians  had 
need  of  it  un<U'r  their  peculiar  circumstances,  they 
copied  it  from  the  exampl(3  of  the  synagogue ;  in  so 
doing  they  put  no  obligation  on  the  subsequent  genera- 
tions of  the  church  further  than  to  provide  expedient 
means  of  good  order  in  the  administration  of  ecclesias- 
tical business.  Hence  the  English  "NVesleyans  have 
no  deacons,  not  deeming  the  office  necessary.  Any 
church  can  have  them  or  not,  as  its  interests  re- 
c^uire,  or  can  modify  tlie  odieo.  making  it  a  lay  or 
clerical  one,  as  it  choo-i  -^ ;  loi-.  ;i<  we  have  repeatedly 
said,  particular  forms  of  ecclesiastical  economy  are 
not  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  church.  The  con- 
troversy, therefore,  relntes  more  to  a  question  of  Sis- 
torical  accuracy  than  of  t)ractical  necessity. 


CHURCH   GOVERNMENT.  83 


PART   II. 

THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH— ITS  ORIGIN. 


i 


CHAPTER  I. 

ORIGIN    OF   THE  METHODIST   ECONOMY. 

Not  a  contrived,  but  providential  arrangement — Its  successive 
stages — Mr.  Asbury's  original  relation  to  it — Organization  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Two  of  tlie  violent  assaults  made  on  tlie  government  ] 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal   Church  within  the  last( 
twentj-five  years  have  had  reference  to  its  origin :  the  j 
first  implying  that  it  is  a  system  of  oppression,  con- 
trived and  formally  adopted  hy  the  clergy  without  con- 
sultation  with  the  If^Vy ;  the  second  asserting  that  its 
e^?'5co^cfc^,^n_particular,  was  introduced  in  defiance  of 
the  expressed  wishes  of  Mr.  Wesley.   (See  True  Wes- 
leyan,  vol.  ii,  No.  8.)      In  meeting  these  objections  we 
shall,  first,  state  the  origin  of  the  Methodist  -polity  in  gene- 
roi;  second,  the  origin  of  its  episcopacy  in  particular.  \ 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  Methodists,  with 
most  other  Christian  sects,  do  not  consider  that  church 
government  ought  to  be  modeled  on  that  of  the  state. 
It  should  be  neither  monarchical,  aristocratic,  nor 
democratic,  but  founded  upon  the  Scrijitures  and  the 
actual  wants  of  the  times,  provided  the  different  parts 
are  so  balanced  as  not  to  oppress  any  party. 

1.  The  Methodist  economy  was  not  a  contHyedspis- 
tem..     It  was  the  result  of  providential  circumstances. 


2- 


84  cnuncn  govehnment. 

WIk'ii  'Mr.  AVesley  commenced  his  labors  in  England 
he  lool^O(l  not  into  the  future,  but  consuhed  only  the 
openings  of  jursent  duty.  '•  AVhillier  they  -were  to 
lead  lie  knew  not,"  says  Southey,  "  nor  what  form  or 
consistence  the  societies  he  was  collecting  would  as- 
sume, nor  where  he  was  to  find  laborers  as  he  enlarged 
the  field  of  his  operations,  nor  how  the  scheme  was  to 
derive  its  temporal  support.  But  these  considerations 
neither  troubled  him,  nor  made  him  for  a  moment  fore- 
slacken  his  course.  God,  he  believed,  had  appointed 
it,  and  God  would  always  provide  means  for  his  own 

^ends." — Life  of  Wesley. 

^  CHe  went  out  preaching  to  the  masses  in  the  high- 
ways.    Multitudes  were  converted)    (Thej  applied  to 

I  him  for  spiritual  counsel.  lie  combined  them  in  small 
companies  or  societies,  the  more  conveniently  to  guide 
them ;    in  time  they  were  formed  into  "  bands "  and 

I  "  classes,"  under  "  leaders,"  and  were  thus  placed  under 

I  spiritual  oversight  during  his  absence)  [These  societies 
soon  found  private  houses  too  strait  for  their  conve- 
nience.   They  erected  humble  buildings  for  their  meet- 

!  j"gs?  ^"^d  thence  sprung  up  a  series  of  chapels,  a  result 

I  altogether  unanticipated^  (Among  the  societies  thus 
collected  were  occasionally  found  men  of  deep  piety, 
sound  sense,  and  strqi\g  natural  powers,  who,  in  the 
absence  of  AVesley,  instructed  the  people  by  reading 
the  Scriptures  and  exhortation.  Such  he  took  under 
his  special  direction  as  providential  assistants  in  his 
great  work,  and  thence  arose  the  Methodist  lai/  minis- 

'  irj/^  (By  Ihe  rapid  multiplication  of  the  societies,  it 
became  necessary  that  the  preachers,  or  "  assistants," 
as  they  were  called,  should  travel  from  one  to  another, 
each  supplying  a  plurality  of  appointments ;  and  thence 


Ltrvvlw 


Vul 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  85 

arose  the  itinerancy^  (These  assistants  became,  m\J 
time,  so  numerous,  that  it  was  necessary  for  Wesley 
to  assemble  them  periodically,  in  order  to  examine  and 
counsel  them,  and  regulate  their  labors ;  thence^arose 
the  amiual  conferences^  an  unpretending  title,  indi-  \ 
eating  the  simplicity  of  their  character^)  (AX  these  con- 
ferences Wesley  distributed  his  "  assistants,"  and  cer- 
tain questions  were  asked  and  answered  comprehend- 
ing the  arrangements  of  the  new  body.  They  were 
published  annually  in  humble  pamphlets,  called  Min- 
utes;  and  thence  arose  the  Annual  Minutes^  The 
arrangements  and  regulations  thus  nrrnhufally^  or 
rather  prmndentially,  provided,  gradurdJij  (/reic  perma- 
nent^ and  formed  the  government  of  fJte  sect.  When 
the  Annual  Minutes  became  numerous,  their  substance 
was  digested  by  Wesley  into  a  permanent  document, 
called  the  Large  Minutes,  which  became,  and  in  various 
forms  has  continued  to  be,  the  Discipline  of  the  body. 

Thus,  societies,  classes,  chapels,  lay  preachers,  itine- 
rancy,  conferences,  minutes,  or  the  discipline,  succes- 
sively and  providentially  entered  into  the  system  of 
Methodism.  At  the  head  of  this  system  stood  Wesley, 
gladly  acknowledged  by  the  increasing  thousands  of 
his  followers  as  the  founder  and  rightful  director  of 
the  whole. 

Meantime,  Methodism  reached  the  colonies  of  this  v^-wvjto^ 
continent.  A  few,  adopting  its  doctrines  and  name, 
in  New-York  city  and  elsewhere,  applied  to  Wesley 
for  some  of  his  "  assistants,"  or  preachers.  He  sent 
several,  and  among  them  Francis  Asbury,  who  acted 
as  his  general  assistant,  performing  in  this  country 
the  functions  which  Wesley  exercised  in  England,  and 
subject  to  his  direction.     As  the  preachers  increased 


86  cnuRcn  govkkxment. 

ill  this  country,  they,  from  time  to  time,  expressed 
their  approbation  of  this  aj)i)ointment.  In  the  Minutes 
for  1771)  is  the  ibllowing  item : — 

"  Quest.  12.  Ought  not  brother  Asbury  to  act  as 
general  assistant  in  America? 

"  Ans.  He  ought :  1st.  On  account  of  his  age. 
2d.  Because  originally  appointed  hy  Mr.  Wesley. 
3d.  Being  joined  by  Messrs.  Rankin  and  Shadford, 
by  express  order  from  Mr.  Wesley." 

And  again,  in  1782: — 

"  Quest.  19.  Do  the  brethren  in  conference  unani- 
mously choose  brother  Asbury  to  act  according  to  Mr, 
Wesley's  original  appointment,  and  preside  over  the 
American  conferences  and  the  whole  work  ? 

''Ans.  Yes." 

And  in  1784,  among  other  conditions  required  of 
"  European  preachers"  admitted  among  us,  one  is,  that 
they  shall  be  ''subject  to  Francis  Asbury  as  general 
assistant  ichile  he  stands  approved  by  Mr.  Wesley  and 
the  conference.''^ 

As  the  two  countries  were  then  under  one  govern- 
ment, the  two  churches  were  also.  Wesley's  "Min- 
utes" were  the  discipline  of  the  American  as  well  as 
the  British  Methodists ;  and  Asbury  represented  his 
person  among  us,  vested  with  much  greater  powers 
than  now  belong  to  our  bishops. 

Thus  was  the  American  church  governed,  for  years, 
by  the  parental  direction  of  Wesley.  Meanwhile, 
none  of  our  preachers  being  ordained,  the  societies 
were  dependent  upon  the  clergy  of  the  English  Church 
in  this  country  for  the  sacraments.  At  the  Revolu- 
tion most  of  these  left  the  country,  and  the  Methodists 
Avere  thereby  deprived  of  the  sacraments.     Many  in- 


CHURCH   GOVERNMENT.  87 

sisted  upon  having  them  without  ordination.  A  gene- 
ral strife  ensued,  and  a  large  portion  of  the  southern 
church  revolted.  A  compromise  was  effected  until 
they  could  apply  to  Wesley  for  a  more  thorough  ar- 
rangement, with  powers  to  ordain  and  administer  the 
sacraments.  In  meeting  their  demand  he  ordained 
and  sent  over  Dr.  Coke,  with  episcopal  powers,  under 
the  name  of  superintendent,  to  ordain  Francis  Asbury 
a  "joint  superintendent,"  and  to  ordain  the  preachers 
to  the  offices  of  deacons  and  elders.  He  sent  also  a 
printed  liturgy,  or  "  Sunday  Service,"  containing  forms 
for  "  ordaining  Superintendents,  Elders,  and  Deacons," 
the  "Articles  of  Religion,"  and  "A  Collection  of 
Psalms  and  Hymns."  They  w^ere  accompanied  by  a 
circular  letter  to  the  societies,  stating,  as  a  reason  for 
these  new  measures,  that  "  some  thousands  of  the  in- 
habitants of  these  states  desire  my  advice  ;  and,  in  com- 
pliance ivith  their  desire,  I  have  drawn  up  a  little 
sketch^'  &c.  When  Dr.  Coke  arrived,  the  preachers 
assembled  in  Baltimore  to  receive  him  and  the  new 
arrangements  borne  by  him  from  Wesley.  The  adop- 
tion of  the  appointments  and  arrangements  thus  made 
by  the  father  of  Methodism  at  the  request  of  "some 
thousands,"  is  what  is  called  the  "  organization  "  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  "  Minutes,"  which 
had  before  been  the  law  of  the  church,  were  continued, 
with  such  additions  as  were  required  by  these  new 
arrangements  of  Wesley.  There  was  no  revolution 
of  the  church  polity,  no  new  powers  imparted  to_As- 
bury,  except  to  ordain  preachers.  Everything  pro- 
ceeded as  before,  except  that  now,  the  Church  of 
England  being  dissolved  by  the  American  Revolution, 
we  no  longer  depended  upon  it  for  the  sacraments,  but 


88  cnuRcn  government. 

ciijoyed  tlicin  iiDiong  ourselves.  All  subsequent  modi- 
fications  took  jjlace'  in  the  manner  previously  appointed 
by  Wesley,  in  both  England  and  America;  that  is,  by 
tJie  action  of  the  conferenees,  as  providential  circum- 
stances required.     Thus,  then,  it  appears, — 

1.  That  the  Methodist  polity,  instead  of  being  a 
contrived  s^'^stem,  im])osed  by  the  ministry  upon  the 
people,  providentially  grew  up  in  the  progress  of  the 
denomination. 

2.  That  Mr.  "Wesley  was  the  agent  of  Providence 
in  its  gradual  formation ;  and  that  his  followers,  vene- 
rating liim  as,  under  God,  the  father  of  INIcthodism, 
universally  and  gladly  recognized  his  agency  in  its 
establishment, 

3.  That  the  so-called  "  organization  "  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  at  Baltimore,  was  simply  and 
substantially  the  continuance  of  the  system  previously 
appointed  by  Wesley,  with  such  alterations  as  he,  at 
our  request,  provided.  In  respect  to  the  very  term 
^^  episcopaV  itself,  the  conference  at  Baltimore  said,  in 
tlieir  "Minutes"  of  the  so-called  organization,  that, 
"  following  the  counsel  of  Mr.  John  Wesley,  who  recom- 
mended the  episcopal  mode  of  church  government,  we 
thought  it  best  to  become  an  Episcopal  Church,''  &c. — 
Minutes  of  1785.  The  Minutes  containing  this  decla- 
ration were,  six  months  after,  in  the  hands  of  Wesley, 
and  published  in  London,  under  liis  eye,  without  a 
word  of  disapprobation ;  and  when  Dr.  Coke  was 
attacked  for  liis  proceedings  at  Baltimore,  in  the  Lon- 
don papers,  he  publicly  defended  himself  by  declaring 
that  he  had  "done  nothing  without  the  direction  of 
3Ir.  Wesley:'* 

*  Defense  of  our  Fathers.  Reply  to  T.  T.  Castleman, by  a  Layman. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  89 

4.  That  the  government  of  the  American  Methodist 
Church  is  therefore  truly  Wesleyan  m  its  origin,  and 
thaf  those  who,  under  the  name  of  "  True  Wesleyans," 
ai'e  attempting  to  destroy  it,  are  not  entitled  to  that 
appellation,  but  are  actually  opposing  what  was  j)rima- 
rily  the  work  of  Wesley  himself. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ORIGIN   OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPACY. 

Did  Wesley  originate  it  1 — Preliminaries — A  series  of  proofs. 

We  pass  now  to  the  second  charge,  namely,  that 
our  episcopacy,  in  particular,  was  established  in  defi- 
ance of  the  expressed  wishes  of  Mr.  Wesley. 

Mr.  Wesley,  while  he  established  our  episcopacy, 
did^not  approve  the  use  of  the  appellation  "  biskoj)" 
because  of  the  adventitious  dignities  associated  with  it. 
We  had  been  in  existence  three  or  four  years  under 
the  express  title  of  an  "  Episcopal  Church,"  with  the 
uninterrupted  approbation  of  Wesley,  before  the  name 
bishop  was  personally  applied  to  our  superintendents. 
Not  till  this  term  was  adopted  did  he  demur.  He 
then  wrote  a  letter  to  Bishop  Asbury  objecting  strongly 
to  his  being  "  called  a  bishop."  This  letter  has  been 
published  for  years  at  our  own  Book  Rooms,  in  Moore's 
Life  of  Wesley,  without  an  apprehension  that  it  could 
be  validly  used  against  us.  Our  antagonists  have, 
however,  adopted  some  of  its  strongest  sentences  as 
their  mottoes ;  and  under  general  headings,  such  as 
"  Did  Mr.  Wesley  approve  of  bishops  ?"  &c.,  they  have 
repeatedly  published  extracts  from  it  adapted  only  for 
a  false  effect ;  for  while  their  extracts  are  unaccompa- 


90  CHURCH    flOVKRNMKNT. 

nied  by  any  qualification  sliowing  that  Wesley  did  not 
condemn  the  fl^cc,  which  he  ai»proved  and  created,  but 
merely  the  name,  the  headin;;.s  and  comments  which 
accompany  them  are  so  worded  as  to  begu ile  the  read- 
er,  not  acquainted  with  the  facts,  into  the  supi)Osition 
that  it  was  the  t/iing,  not  merely  the  name,  that  Wesley 
condemned.  Though  our  argument  must  reflect  seri- 
ously on  the  candor  of  these  representations,  we  are 
compelled  to  show  the  amazing  injustice  attempted  to 
be  done  in  this  instance  to  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  church 
which  he  planted.  Three  things  are  to  be  understood 
in  this  inquiry  : — 

1.  That  Wesley  was  a  staunch  Episcoj^alian.  What 
man  was  ever  more  attached  to  the  national  episcopacy 
of  England  ?  But  he  has  left  an  express  declaration 
on  the  subject.  "  /  believe,''^  says  he,  "  the  episcopal 
form  of  church  government  to  he  Scriptural  and 
apostolical ;""  that  is,  conformable  to  the  Scriptures 
and  apostolic  usage,  though  not  prescribed  by  them, 
as  he  shows  in  the  context.  (See  pp.  11,  12  of  tliis 
Essay.) 

2.  That  Wesley,  w^hile  he  believed  fiiTnly  in  episco- 
pacy, belonged  to  that  class  of  Episcopalians  in  the 
English  Church  who  contend  that  episcopacy  is  not  a 
distinct  order,  but  a  distinct  office  in  the  ministry  ;  that 
bishops  and  presbyters,  or  elders,  are  of  the  same  order, 
and  have  essentially  the  same  prerogatives ;  but  that, 
for  convenience,  some  of  this  order  are  raised  to  the 
episcopal  office,  and  some  of  the  functions  originally 
pertaining  to  the  whole  order  confined  to  them,  such 
as  ordination,  &c.  (See  his  Circular  Letter  to  Ameri- 
can Methodists,  on  the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke.) 

3.  That  the  words  episcopos  in  Greek,  superintend- 


CHURCH   GOVERNMENT.  91 

ent  in  Latin,  and  bishop  in  Eng;lish,  have,  as  we  have 
shown,  the  same  meaning;. 

With  these  preliminaries,  we  recur  to  the  above 
question :  "  Did  Mr.  Wesley  approve  of  bishops  ?"  or,  ■l'-'-*^ 
what  is  more  to  the  point,  as  connecting  the  question 
with  our  church,  Did  he  appoint  Dr.  Coke  to  the  epis-" 
copal  office?  did  he  establish  the  Methodist  episco- 
pacy? We  affirm  most  unqualifiedly  that  he  did.  Our 
antagonists  deny  it,  iind  reduce  tlie  rij>|;ointnient  of 
Coke  to  a  speL^^s  of  general  supervision,  declaring  it 
to  be  altogether  foreign  to  the  ^jiscopal  office.  Let 
us  now  look  at  the  evidence. 

1.  Mr.  Wesley  mentions  in  Dr^  Coke's  lettersjDf 
ordination,  as  a  reason  for  ordaining  him,  that  the 
Methodists  in  this  country  desired  ^^  still  to  adhere  to 
the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  EnglancU' 
That  church  was  dissolved  by  the  Revolution ;  he, 
therefore,  appointed  Dr.  Coke,  with  an  episcopal  form 
of  government,  to  meet  the  want.  If  Dr.  Coke  was 
appointed  merely  to  some  general  relation  to  the 
church,  without  the  authoritative  supervision  pertain- 
ing to  the  episcopal  office,  wherein  did  his  appointment 
meet  the  reason  mentioned  by  Wesley — "  the  discipline 
of  the  Church  of  England  f  '\Yherein  consists  the 
main  feature  of  the  discipline  of  the  English  Church  ? 
In  its  episcopal  superintendency.  ^Ylierein  does  our 
system  resemble  it  ?  Certainly  not  in  its  classes,  itine- 
rancy, &c.,  but  in  its  episcopal  regimen.  Wesley's 
language  is  sheer  nonsense  if  this  is  not  its  meaning. 

2.  Why  did  Wesley  attach  so  much  im^portance^to 
the  appointment  if  it  Avas  of  the  secondary  character 
alledg;ed  ?  He  says,  in  his  circular  letter  on  Dr.  Coke's 
appointment : — 


92  CUURCII   GOVEitNMKNT. 

"  For  many  years  I  have  been  importuned,  from 
time  to  time,  to  exereise  this  right  l)y  ordainivg  part 
of  our  traveling  preaeliers ;  but  I  liave  still  lefused, 
not  only  for  peace'  sake,  but  because  I  wjvs  determined 
as  little  as  possible  to  violate  the  established  order  of 
the  nationid  church  to  which  I  belonged.  But  the  case 
is  widely  different  between  England  and  America. 
Here  there  are  bishojjs  who  have  a  legal  jurisdiction. 
In  America  there  are  none,  neither  any  parish  minis- 
ters; so  that,  for  some  hundred  miles  tojrether,  there 
are  none  either  to  baptize  or  administer  the  sacrament. 
Here,  therefore,  my  scruples  are  at  an  end  /" 

Scruples!  What  could  have  been  his  "scruples'* 
about  sending  a  man  on  such  a  secondary  errand  as 
our  opponents  assert?  He  had  already  sent  Asbury 
and  others  to  this  country,  and  to  Asbury  he  had  actu- 
ally assigned  such  a  special  yet  secondary  office  as  our 
opponents  ascribe  to  this  new  appointment,  but  unac- 
companied with  the  ordination  and  authority  of  episco- 
pacy. This  he  had  done  years  before,  without  any 
scruple  whatever ;  but  all  this  time  he  had  been  scru- 
pling about  this  new  and  solemn  measure,  till  the 
Revolution  relieved  him  by  dissolving  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  English  bishops  over  this  country.  We  say 
again,  there  is  sheer  nonsense  in  all  this  if  Wesley 
merely  gave  to  Coke  and  Asbury  a  sort  of  indefinite 
special  commission  in  the  American  church,  not  includ- 
ing in  it  the  distinctive  functions  of  episcopacy.  We 
can  conceive  of  nothing  in  the  nature  of  such  a  com- 
mission to  excite  such  scruples,  and  such  a  commission 
had  long  since  been  allowed  to  Mr.  Asbury. 

Again,  when  Mr.  AVesley  proposed  to  Dr.  Coke  his 
ordination  to  this  new  office,  some  six  or  seven  months 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  93 

before  it  was  conferred,  the  doctor  was  startled,  (as 
Drew  tells  us  in  the  I^e^f^CokeJi  a7id  doubted  Wes- 
ley's  autJtoritij  to  ordain  him,  as  "Wesley  himself  was 
not  a  bishop.  Wesley  recommended  him  to  read  Lord 
King's  Primitive  Church,  and  gave  him  time  to  reflect. 
Coke  passed  several  months  in  Scotland,  and,  on  satis- 
fying his  doubts,  wrote  to  Wesley,  accepting  the  ap- 
pointment, and  was  afterward  ordained  with  solermi 
forms  and  the  imposition  of  hands  by  Wesley,  assisted 
by  presbyters  of  the  Church  of  England.  Now  we 
put  it  to  the  common  sense  of  the  reader,  if  aJl  these 
former  scruples  of  AYesley,  this  surprise,  and  douht,  and 
delay  of  Coke,  this  reference  to  eccleskstical  antiquity, 
and  these  solemn  /br??ig,  were  anything  less  than  ridicu- 
lous if  they  related  merely  to  tlie  species  of  appoint- 
ment  asserted  iDy  our  opixjucnts,  e-pecitilly  as  this  very 
species  of  commission  licid  already  L.iug  existed  in  the 
person  of  Asbury  ? 

~  3.  It  is  evident,  beyond  all  question,  that  Wesley 
did  not  consider  this  solemn  act  in  the  subordinate 
sense  of  an  appointment,  but  as  an  "  ordination^  using 
the  word  in  its  strictest  ecclesiastical  application.  Look 
again  at  the  above  quotation  from  his  circular  letter. 
"  For  many  years,"  says  he,  "  I  have  been  importuned 
...  to  exercise  this  right  by  ordaining  a  part  of  our 
traveling  preachers ;  but  I  have  still  refused  .  .  .  be- 
cause I  was  determined  as  Httle  as  possible  to  violate 
the  established  order  of  the  national  church.  .  .  .  Here 
[that  is,  in  respect  to  America  after  the  Revolution] 
my  scruples  are  at  an  end."  Here  the  word  ordain- 
ing  is  expressly  used ;  and  if  the  new  aj^jpointmen^waa 
not  a  regular  "  ordination,"  but  a  species  of  nondescript 
commission,  like  that  contended  for  by  our  opponents, 


1)1  ciiLi:cii  <.;ovi:knmi;nt. 

Low  could  it  be  an  interference  with  "  the  established 
order  of  the  national  church  V  How,  especially,  could 
it  be  such  an  intcrtcrenco  in  aiiy  important  sense  dif- 
ferent from  that  which  AVesley  had  already,  for  years, 
been  exercising  without  "■  scruple,"  in  sending  to  this 
country  his  unordained  preachers  ?  It  was  clearly  an 
ordinatioUj  in  the  ecclesiastical  sense  of  the  term. 
Now  there  have  been  but  three  ordinations  ever 
claimed  by  any  sect  in  the  world;  namely,  to  the 
offices  of,  1.  Deacons;  2.  Elders  or  presbyters;  and, 
3.  Bishops.  If,  then.  Dr.  Coke  was  ordained  by  Wes- 
ley,  as  we  have  proved,  and  was  not  ordained  a  bishop, 
as  our  opponents  assert,  we  ask  these  new  speculators 
in  church  polity  to  what  was  he  ordained  ?  He  had 
been  a  presbyter  for  years.  To  what,  then,  did  Wes- 
ley ordain  him,  if  not  to  the  next  office  ?  It  is  folly  to 
evade  here. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  Messrs.  Whatcoat  and 
Vasey  were  ordained  elders  for  this  country  at  the 
same  time.  If  Di".  C'nkc  did  not  then  receive  a  higher 
ordination,  Tthat  is,  episcuixil,  lur  this  Is  the  only  higher 
one.>  why  was  he  ordained  separately  from  them? 
And  why  did  Wesley,  in  his  circular  letter,  declare  to 
the  American  Methodists  that,  while  Whatcoat  and 
Vasey  were  "  to  act  as  elders  among  them,"  Coke  and 
Asbiiry  were  "  to  be  joint  superintendents  over  them  ?" 
How  are  we  to  interpret  language,  if  ours  is  not  the 
sense  of  Wesley  ? 

4.  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  circular  letter,  appeals  to 
Lord  King's  Sketch  of  the  Primitive  Church  to  show, 
that  he,  as  a  presbyter,  had  a  right,  under  his  peculiar 
circumstances,  to  perform  these  ordinations.  Lord 
King  establishes  beyond  a  doubt  the  second  of  our 


CHUKCH   GOVERNMENT.  95 

above  preliminary  statements,  and  the  right  of  pres- 
byters to  ordain.  He  refers  particularly  to  the  Alex- 
andrian church,  where,  on  the  decease  of  a  bishop,  the 
presbyters  ordained  his  successor.  Mr.  Crowther,  in 
his  "  Portraiture  of  Methodism,"  and  Mr.  Sutcliffe,  in 
his  "  Life  of  Coke,"  (both  Wesleyan  preachers,)  and 
the  celebrated  Drew,  in  his  "  Life  of  Coke,"  say  that, 
when  Wesley  communicated  to  Coke  his  wish  to  ordain 
him,  he  said : — 

"  That,  as  the  Revolution  of  America  had  separated 
the  United  States  from  the  mother  country  for  ever, 
and  the  episcopal  establishment  was  utterly  abolished, 
the  societies  had  been  represented  to  him  in  a  most 
deplorable  condition.  That  an  appeal  had  also  been 
made  to  him  through  Mr.  Asbury,  m  which  he  was 
requested  to  provide  for  them  some  mode  of  church 
government  suited  to  their  exigencies ;  and  that,  hav- 
ing long  and  seriously  revolved  the  subject  in  his 
thoughts,  he  intended  to  adopt  the  plan  which  he  was 
now  about  to  unfold.  That  as  he  had  invariably  en- 
deavored, in  every  step  he  had  taken,  to  keep  as  close 
to  the  Bible  as  possible,  so,  on  the  present  occasion,  he 
hoped  he  was  not  about  to  deviate  from  it.  That, 
keeping  his  eye  upon  the  conduct  of  the  primitive 
churches  in  the  ages  of  unadulterated  Christianity,  he 
had  much  admired  the  mode  of  ordaining  bishops 
which  the  church  of  Alexandria  had  practiced.  That, 
to  preserve  its  purity,  that  church  would  never  suffer 
the  interference  of  a  foreign  bishop  in  any  of  their 
ordinations,  but  that  the  presbyters  of  that  venerable 
apostolical  church,  on  the  death  of  a  bishop,  exercised 
the  right  of  ordaining  another  from  their  own  body  by 
the  laying  on  of  their  own  hands  j  and  that  this  prac- 


96  CUUKCII   GOVEllNMENT. 

tice  continued  among  them  for  two  liundred  years,  till 
the  days  of  Dionysius.  And  liiially,  that,  being  him- 
self a  presbyter,  he  wished  Dr.  Coke  to  accept  ordina' 
tion  from  his  hands,  and  to  proceed,  m  that  character, 
to  the  continent  of  America,  to  superintend  the  socie- 
ties of  the  United  States." — Drew's  Life  of  Coke. 

Now  we  ask  ngain,  AVhy  this  reference  to  Lord 
King  and  tlio  Alt  xaiidrian  church — provmg  that  pres- 
hyt<  I  s  (diild  >>r<l<iin — in  justification  of  Wesley's  pro- 
cee'liii,--.  if  ln'  dM  ]i<«i  <n->hi'ni  ?  And  if  h^ejlid  ordain 
D]-.  (  uki'.  \\<'  ajaiii  :i-k.  a-  ihe  doctor  was  already  a 
pr<'-li_\  Icr.  to  ^vll,•^t  wa-  lie  lliii.-  oi'daiiird,  if  it  was  not 
the  only  reiiiaiiiiiig  oilicc — the  epi.-cH}>:ioy  ?  And  we 
ask  still  more  pointedly,  what  propria  ly  ^\  as  there  in 
Wesley's  justifying  himself  by  referring  to  the  ordina- 
tion  of  bishops  by  the  presbyters  of  Alexandria,  if  lie 
himself  had  not  ordained  a  bishop  ?  A>-u]<  <11\,  the 
view  of  our  opponents  renders  Wesley  utterly  absurd. 

5.  Mr.  Wesley  prepared  at  this  time  a  prayer  book 
for  the  Arnerican  churches^  to  be  used  under  this  new 
arrangement.  It  contains  the  forms  for  the  ordination 
of,  1.  Deacons;  2.  Elders;  3.  Superintendents;  and 
directs  exj^ressly  that  all  elected  to  the  office  of  dea- 
con, elder,  or  superintendent,  should  be  presented  to 
the  superintendent  to  be  ordained.  We  remark,  1.  That 
here  the  very  word  ordain  is  used.  2.  We  have  here 
the  three  distinct  offices  of  the  ministry  stated  in  order, 
according  to  the  understanding  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  all 
Episcopalians  the  world  over.  3,  That  npt  only  ia 
the  name  of  bishop  change^  to  that  of  superintendent, 
but  the  name  of  preshjter,  or  priest,  to  that  of  elder — 
the  new  names  being  in  both  cases  precisely  synony- 
mous with  the  old  ones.    Now,  if  the  change  of  the 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  97 

former  name  implies  a  difference  in  the  ofjice  also, 
why  does  not  the  change  in  the  latter  imply  the  same? 
and  why  do  not  seceders  deny,  then,  that  we  have  pres- 
hyters  as  well  as  bishops  ?  and  what  then  becomes  of 
their  own  aiithoritj  as  presbyters?  How  dare  they 
administer  the  sacraments,  and  perform  other  rights, 
denied  by  Wesley  and  the  universal  church  to  all  be- 
low presbyters?  Behold  into  what  absurdities  their 
logic  leads  them !  4.  We  remark  that  these  forms  of 
ordination  were  abridged  from  the  forms  in  the  Miglish 
Liturgy  for  the  ordination  of  deacons^  preshyterSj  and 
bishops,  the_  names  of  the  latter  two  being  changed  to 
synonymous  terms,  namely,  elders  and  superintendents. 
Our  opponents  freely  grant  that  elder  means  presbyter, 
and  that  we  really  have  the  office,  though  not  the  name ; 
yet,  as  soon  as  we  mention  superintendents  as  bishops, 
they  fly  off  in  a  tangent.  5.  These  forms  jhow  that 
Wesley  not  only  created  our  episcopacy,  but  designed 
it  to  continue  after  Coke  and  Asbury's  decease. 

6.  By  reading  Coke's  letter  to  Wesley,  consenting 
to,  and  directing  about,  his  proposed  ordination,  it  will 
be  seen  that  Messrs.  Whatcoat  and  Vasey  were  or- 
dained presbyters  at  his  request,  because  ^^ propriety 
and  universal  practice  make  it  expedient  that  I  should 
have  two  presbyters  with  me  in  this  worlc." — Drew. 
That  is.  Coke  requests,  and  Wesley  grants,  that  two 
presbyters  shall  be  ordained  to  accompany  Coke  in  his 
new  office,  because  ^^  propriety  and  universal  practice" 
require  that  two  presbyters  assist  a  bishop  in  ordain- 
ing ;  and  yet  Coke  was  not  appointed  to  the  office  of 
a  bishop  !  Alas  for  such  logic  !  We  repeat :  Coke, 
in  this  letter,  requests  that  these  two  men  should  be 
made  "presbyters."  Wesley  complies j  and  yet,  in 
5 


98  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

the  forms  of  the  prayer  book  or  discipline,  thoy  are 
railed  "  elders^  The  7iamc,  therefore,  was  only 
changed,  not  the  thing ;  "vvhy,  then,  is  not  the  infer- 
ence just  that  the  other  change  in  these  forms,  that  of 
bishop  to  superintendent,  is  only  in  the  name,  not  the 
thing  ?    The  rule  certainly  ought  "  to  work  both  ways." 

7.  Charles  AYcsley  was  a  rigid  high  churchman,  and 
opposed  to  all  oi;dinations  by  his  brother.  .  The  latter 
knew  his  views  so  well  that  he  would  not  expose  the 
present  measure  to  interruption  by  acquainting  him 
with  it  till  it  was  consummated.  Though  Charles  was 
a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  in  the  town 
at  the  time,  yet  other  presbyters  were  summoned  (one 
even  from  London)  to  meet  the  demand  of  "  j^ropriety 
and  universal  practice"  on  such  occasions,  while  he 
was  utterly  avoided.  Now,  why  this  remarkable  pre- 
caution against  the  high  church  prejudices  of  his 
brother  respecting;  ordinations,  if  he  did  not  in  these 
H9.9£*?5liDS^  ordain?  If  it  be  replied,  that  Charles 
was  not  only  opposed  to  his  brother's  ordaining  a 
bishop,  but  equally  to  his  ordaining  to  the  other  offices 
of  the  ministry,  and  therefore  those  ordinations  might 
have  been  confined  to  the  latter,  and  yet  such  precau- 
tions be  proper,  we  then  ask  again.  How  can  we  sup- 
pose Dr.  Coke  to  be  ordained  to  these  lower  orders 
when  he  had  already  received  and  exercised  them  for 
years  ? 

8.  As  soon  as  ^'harles  Wesley  learned  these  ^iro- 
ceedings  he  was  profoundly  afflicted.  His  correspond- 
ence with  his  brother  (sec  Jackson's  Life  of  Charles 
Wesley)  shows  that  he  understood  them  in  the  man- 
ner that  we  do,  and  3fr.  Wesley  never  corrected  this 
interpretation.     He  vindicates  himself,  but  never  de- 


CHURCH   GOVERNMENT.  99 

nies  tlie  facts.  Charles  speaks  of  Dr.  Coke's  "  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  Baltimore,"  alluding  to  the 
name  assumed  by  our  church  at  its  organization  in 
that  city.  Wesley,  in  his  reply,  utters  not  a  word  in 
denial  or  disapproval  of  this  title,  but  simply  vindicates 
the  necessity  of  his  course  in  respect  to  the  Amierican 
Methodists.  Charles,  in  reply,  speaks  of  the  doctor's 
*" ambition"  and  "rashness."  John,  though  he  knew 
the  church  had  been  organized  at  Baltimore  with  the 
title  of  "  Episcopal,"  says :  "  I  believe  Dr.  Coke  as  free 
from  ambition  as  covetousness.  He  has  done  nothing 
rashly  that  I  know."  Charles,  in  his  letter  to  Dr. 
Chandler,  (see  Jackson,)  speaks  earnestly  of  his  bro- 
ther having  "assumed  the  episcopal  character,  or- 
dained elders,  consecrated  a  bishop,  and  sent  him  to 
ordain  our  lay  preachers  in  America;"  showing  thus 
what  the  office  really  was,  though  the  name  was 
changed.  It  was  only  the  term  bishop,  applied  to  the 
superintendents  in  person,  that  AVesley  disapproved. 

9.  The  conference  at  which  the  church  was  orga- 
nized terminated  January  1, 1785.  The  Minutes  were 
published  by  Dr.  Coke  with  the  title,  "  General  Minutes 
of  the  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America."  The  Minutes  expressly  say  that  we  were 
formed  into  an  Episcopal  Church,  and  this,  too,  at  the 
^^ recommendation^^  of  Wesley.  By  July  26th,  Dr. 
Coke  was  with  Wesley  at  the  British  Conference. 
By  the  26th  of  the  preceding  June,  liis  own  Journal, 
containing  this  phrase,  was  inspected  by  Wesley.  The 
doctor  also  took  to  England  the  Minutes  above  men- 
tioned, and  they  were  printed  on  a  press  which  Wesley 
used,  and  under  his  own  eye.  The  Baltimore  pro- 
ceedings were,  therefore,  known  to  Wesley,  but  we 


100  CHURCH  govp:rnment. 

hear  of  no  remonstrance  from  him.  They  soon  be- 
came known,  l)y  the  Minutes,  to  the  public;  and  when 
Coke  was  attacked  in  a  newspaper  tor  what  he  had 
done,  he  replied,  tlirough  the  press,  that  "  he  had  done 
nothing  hut  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Wesley."  Wes- 
ley never  denied  it,  but  continued  to  show  the  doctor 
the  highest  consideration  and  confidence.  How  is  all 
this  explicable,  on  the  supposition  that  Coke  and  Asbury 
had  ambitiously  broken  over  TVesley's  restrictions  ? 

10.  One  of  Charles  "Wesley's  greatest  fears  wa?,  that 
the  English  preachers  would  be  ordained  by  the  doc- 
tor, lie  had  prevailed  upon  his  brother  to  refuse  them 
ordination  for  years.  He  nowj^vrites,  with  profound 
concern,  that ''  not  a  preacher  in  London  would  refuse 
orders  from  the  doctor."  ''  lie  comes  armed  with  your 
authority  to  make  us  all  di>sont('rs."  (See  Jackson.) 
Now  why  all  this  sii(l<l<  n  di-po-ition  of  the  English 
j)reachers  to  recerve  "  orders  from  the  doctor/'  if  it 
was  not  understood  that  he  had  received  episcopal 
powers,  and  they  (lc<[. aired  <.!'  ever  g.  ttiiiLT  oi^dination 
from  the  national  bishops?  If  it  is  replied.  They 
believed,  with  Wesley,  that,  under  necessary  circum- 
stances, presbyters  could  ordain,  and  therefore  desired 
it  from  the  doctor,  not  in  view  of  his  new  appointment, 
but  because  he  was  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, then  we  ask,  Wliy  did  they  not  seek  it  before,  for 
the  doctor  had  been  a  presbyter  among  them  for  years  ? 
Why  start  up  all  at  once  as  soon  as  they  learned  of 
the  new  position  of  the  doctor?  And  how  could 
Charles  say,  in  this  case,  "  He  comes  armed  with  your, 
authority"  <S:c. ;  for  his  authority  as  a  presbyter  he 
obtained  from  a  bishop  of  the  English  Church  years 
before  he  knew  Wesley, 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  101 

11.  The  term  bishop  was  not  applied,  in  the  Disci- 
pline, to  our  superintendents  till  about  three  years 
after  the  "organization"  of  the  church,  and  Wesley's 
letter  to  Asbury  was  not  written  till  four  years  after. 
During  all  this  interim,  however,  we  were  called  an 
'^  JEpiscopal  Church."  Six  months  after  adopting  the 
name,  our  Minutes  were,  as  above  stated,  inspected  by 
Wesley,  and  published  under  his  eye.  They  were 
called  the  "Minutes  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America;"  and  they  expressly  declared  that,  "fol- 
lowing the  counsel  of  Mr.  John  Wesley,  who  recom- 
mended the  episcopal  mode  of  church  government,  we 
thought  it  best  to  become  an  Episcopal  Church."  Yet, 
during  all  this  inteiim,  Wesley  never  uttered  a  syllable 
against  this  assumption  !  When  his  brother  wrote  him, 
accusing  Coke  of  rashness,  he  repUed  that  "  the  doctor 
had  done  nothing  rashly ;"  and  when  the  doctor  was 
accused  in  the  London  prints,  he  declared,  under  Wes- 
ley's eye  and  without  contradiction,  that  "  he  had  done 
nothing  without  the  direction  of  Mr.  Wesley."  What, 
now,  dees  all  this  imply  ?  What  but  that  Wesley  did 
approve  our  episcopacy — that  it  was  established  by  his 
direction  ?  But,  four  years  after,  when  the  appellation 
of  bishop  was  applied  personally  to  our  episcopoi,  this 
letter  of  Wesley  was  written.  What  further  does  this 
imply?  Why,  that  it  was  not  the  thing  that  he  con- 
demned,  but  the  name  /— ^the^  ^^^_E  _-^.^4_  ??^^^^.^9L 
years  uncondemned,  nay,  defended  by  him.  The  very 
name  '^^  Episcopal,''  so  far  as  it  applied  to  the  church 
collectively,  he  did  not  condemn ;  but  the  personal  title 
of  bishop  he  disapproved,  because  of  its  adventitious 
associations.     Is  it  possible  to  escape  this  conclusion  ? 

12.  Finally,  we  affirm  that  this  view  of  the  subject 


102  CUURCII   GOVERNMENT. 

is  the  unanimous  one  of  all  good  authorities  among  our 
Wesleyan  brethren  themselves.  A  man  would  excite 
a  smile  among  the  Wesleyans  of  England  by  telling 
them  that  their  founder  did  not  approve  of  episcopacy. 
The  much-abused  letter  of  Wesley  to  Asbury  was 
published  by  Mr.  Moore  in  his  "  Life  of  Wesley  ;"  but 
Mr.  Moore  himself  gvAirds  against  our  opponents'  abuse 
of  it,  fully  acknowledges  the  legitimacy  of  our  epis- 
copacy, and  argues  at  length  to  show  that  Wesley 
meant  and  did  what  we  contend  fof,  and  had  a  right 
to  do  soi  No  man  can  extract  the  letter  from  his 
page,  and  give  it  to  the  public  unqualifiedly,  without 
a  consciousness  of  distorting  its  meaning.  He  says: 
"That  our  brethren  who  are  in  that  office  are  true 
Scriptmal  bishops,  I  have  no  doubt;  nor  do  I  wish 
that  the  title  should  be  relinquished."  "  He  [Wesley] 
gave  to  those  episcopoi  [bishops]  whom  he  ordained 
the  modest  title  of  superintendents,"  «&c.  Yet  our  an- 
tagonists extract  from  the  midst  of  these  remarks  a 
letter  to  oppugn  our  episcopacy !  When  Mr.  Moore*s 
Life  of  Wesley  appeared,  it  was  reviewed  in  the  official 
periodical  of  the  Wesleyans.  We  give  an  extract  from 
the  review,  showing  the  views  of  th6  Wesleyans  on 
our  episcopacy,  and  their  sense  of  Mr.  Moore's  re- 
marks : — 

"  The  author  has  spent  some  time  in  showing  that 
episcopacy,  by  name,  was  not  introduced  into  the 
American  Methodist  society  by  the  sanction  of  Mr. 
Wesley ;  who,  though  he,  in  point  of  fact,  did  ordain 
bishops  for  the  American  societies,  intended  them  to 
be  called  '  superintendents.'  To  the  statement  of  this, 
as  an  historical  fact,  no  objection  certainly  lies;  but 
the  way  in  which  it  is  enlarged  upon,  and  the  insertion 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  103 

of  an  objurgatory  letter  of  IVIr.  Wesley  to  Asbury  on 
the  subject,  can  have  no  tendency  but  to  convey  to  the 
reader  an  impression  somewhat  unfavorable  to  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  as  though  they  were  ambitious 
of  show  and  title.  Mr.  Moore,  indeed,  candidly  enough 
relieves  this,  by  admitting  that,  on  Mr.  Wesley's  prm- 
ciple  itself,  and  in  his  own  view,  they  were  true  Scrip- 
tural episcopoi ;  and  that  Mr.  Wesley's  objection  to 
the  name,  in  fact,  arose  from  its  association  in  his  mind 
rather  with  the  adventitious  honors  which  accompany 
it  in  church  establishments,  than  with  the  simplicity 
and  pre-eminence  of  labor,  care,  and  privation  which 
it  has  from  the  first  exhibited  in  America,  and  from 
which  it  could  not,  from  circumstances,  depart.  Ac- 
cording to  this  showing,  the  objection  was  grounded 
upon  no  principle,  and  was  a  mere  matter  of  taste  or 
expediency.  '^Miether  the  name  had,  or  had  not,  the 
sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley,  is  now  of  the  least  possible 
consequence,  as  the  episcopacy  iiself  was  of  Ms  ere- 
odiw^'' — English  Wesleyan  Methodist  Magazine  for 
1825,  p.  183. 

Crowther,  Sutcliffe,  and  Drew,  as  we  have  said, 
perfectly  agree  with  our  view  of  the  matter.  Watson, 
in  his  Life  of  Wesley,  argues  it  at  l^gth,  and  the 
British  Conference  approved  his  work.  Jackson,  in 
his  Life  of  Charles  Wesley,  discusses  the  whole  sub- 
ject. Dixon  declares  our  episcopacy  to  be  a  true  ex- 
ample of  Mr.  Wesley's  views  of  church  government.* 

*  "  When  the  United  States  had  effected  their  emancipation 
from  the  mother  country,  Mr.  Wesley  considered  himself  at  lib- 
erty to  act  with  perfect  freedom  in  the  new  territory,  and,  we 
may  say,  to  develop  his  views  and  opinions  fully ;  and,  if  we 
mistake  not,  it  is  to  the  American  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 


104  ClIUKCII  GOVERNMENT. 

None  of  these  writers  ever  dreamed  that  Wesley  did 
not  appoint  Coke  and  Asbury  as  bishops.  They  labor 
at  length  to  defend  Wesley,  not  against  the  cliarge  of 
having  ordained  bishops,  but  of  having  ordained  them 
without  a  right  to  do  so,  and  prove  that  he  had  this 
right  in  liis  peculiar  circumstances.  Thus  we  see  that, 
whatever  view  we  take  of  the  subject,  we  are  compelled 
to  one  conclusion :  that  Wesley  did  create  and  establish 
our  episcopacy.  The  man  who  gainsays  these  evi- 
dences must  be  given  up  as  incorrigible.  There  can 
be  no  reasoning  with  him. 

Here  we  have  Wesley  proposing  to  establish  "the 
discipline  of  the  Church  of  England"  among  us,  and 
/    yet,  according  to  our  antagonists,  it  is  not  episcopal; 
the  only  respect  in  which  any  resemblance  can  be 
1   traced!     Wesley  and   Coke  had  "scruples,"  delays, 
(references  to  antiquity  and  solemn  forms,  imposition 
\    of  hands,  &c.,  conforming  to  the  "universal  practice" 
of  cpiscojial  ordination  ;  and  yet,  forsooth,  all  concern- 
ing some  nondescript  kind  of  appointment,  analogous 
to  that  which  we  give  to  our  head  missionary  in  Africa 
^_or  Oregon !     Wesley  speaks  of  it  as  "  ordaining,"  and 
of  his  refusing  to  use  the  right  before  the  Revolution 
because  it  would  have  interfered  with  the  "  established 
!    order  of  the  national  church ;"  and  yet  such  a  mere 
I    secondary  commission  of  Dr.  Coke,  such  a  one  as  had 
)  existed  in  the  person  of  Asbury  for  years,  was  the 

that  we  are  to  look  for  the  real  mind  and  sentiments  of  this  great 
man.  Obstructions  removed,  he  instantly  seized  the  opportunity 
of  appointing  an  entire  church  system,  on  the  principle  of  mode- 
rate episcopacy  ;  and  if  we  may  judge  of  the  wisdom  and  piety 
of  the  design  by  its  usefulness  and  success,  certainly  we  shall  be 
prepared  to  consider  it.most  providential." — Dixan  on  Methodism.  • 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  105 


lid' 

)al| 


momentous  interference  with  the  established  order  of ) 
the  national  church !     With  what  in  that  order  could ' 
it  interfere  ?     Had  the  national  church  ever  any  sucl 
appointments?     Wesley   solemnly  "ordains"   Cokel 
and  yet,  say  our  opponents,  it  was  not  to  the  episcopal  J     a^ 
office,  though  he  had  been  ordained  to  all  the  other 
offices  years  before !     Wesley  ordains  two  other  men 
to  the  office  of  elders,  and  at  the  same  time  separately^ 
and  formally  ordains  Dr.  Coke,  who  already  had  borne  ■ 
this  office ;  but  still  Dr.  Coke's  new  office  was  not  the ' 
only  remaining  one  that  could  be  conferred  upon  him!/ 
Wesley  refers  to  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  by  the] 
presbyters  of  Alexandria  in  justification  of  his  ordina-/ 
tion  of  Dr.  Coke ;  and  yet,  forsooth,  he  did  not  ordain] 
Dr.  Coke  a  bishop !     Wesley  prepares  for  the  Ameri^ 
can  Church  a  prayer  book,  abridged  from  that  of  the| 
Church  of  England,  prescribing  the  English  forms  for) 
the  three  offices  of  deacons,  presbyters,  and  bishops:', 
the  two  former  are  allowed  unquestionably  to  be  what! 
they  are  in  England,  and  yet  the  latter  is  utterly  ex-j 
plained  into  something  new  and  anomalous,  answering! 
to  nothing  ever  heard  of  in  the  Church  of  England  or) 
in  any  other  church!     In  these  forms  the  old  names! 
of  two  of  the  offices  are  changed  to  new  but  synony- 
mous terms :  that  of  presbyter,  or  priest,  to  elder ;  that 
of  bishop  to  suj)erintendent.     In  the  former  case  the 
change  of  the  name  is  not  for  a  moment  supposed  to 
imply  a  change  of  the  thing,  and  our  seceding  oppo-s 
nents  contentedly  exercise  the  rights  of  presbyters 
under  the  name  of  elders ;  and  yet,  in  the  other  case, 
the  change  of  name  invalidates  entirely  the  thmg,  with- 
out a  particle  more  evidence  for  it  in  the  one  case  than 
in  the  other !    Charles  Wesley,  being  a  high  church-.\ 
5*  ' 


> 


106  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

<,man,  was  kept  unaware  of  his  brother's  proceedings 
(till  they  were  acconiplislicd,  lhoii<^li  he  was  in  the  town 
^^  the  time  of  the  orclination  ;  aii<l  yet  it  was  no  ordi- 
TvSation,  but  a  species  of  appointment,  against  wliich  he 
_couId   have   had   no   episcopal   prejudice    whatever ! 
When  he  learns  the  facts  he  is  overwhelmed  with 
surprise,  and  in  his  correspondence  exclaims  against 
his   '•  brother's  consecration  of  a  bishop,''  and  "  Dr. 
Coke's  Methodist  Episcopal  Church"  at  Baltimore; 
and  Wesley,  in  his  replies,  never  denies  these  titles, 
.Ibut  simply  vindicates  his  ordinations,  and  says  that  the 
\  doctor  had  "  done  nothing  raslily ;"  yet  there  was  no 
,;  bishop,  no  episcopal  office  appointed,  but  the  doctor 
had  fabricated  it!     When  the  preachers  in  England, 
I  trained  under  episcopacy,  hear  of  the  doctor's  new 
office,  they  are,  to  the  great  alarm  of  Charles  Wesley, 
seized  suddenly  with  a  desire  to  be  ordained  by  the 
doctor,  though,  according  to  our  antagonists,  they  fully 
knew  that  the  doctor  was  no  bishop,  but  the  same 
_£resbyter  that  he  had  been  among  them  for  years ! 
In  six  months  after  the  organization  of  our  clmrch  Dr. 
Coke  publishes  our  Minutes,  with  the  title  "  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  America,"  in  London,  under  the 
eye  of  Wesley,  and  in  these  Minutes  it  is  declared  that 
'  Mr.   Wesley   "  recommended  the   episcopal  mode  of 
church  government "  to   the   American   Methodists ; 
but  no  remonstrance  is  heard  from  Wesley!     When 
Coke  is  condemned  in  the  public  prints  for  his  pro- 
ceedings, he  publicly  replies  that  he  had  done  "no- 
thing  without   the    direction   of  Mr.    Wesley."     No 
Irebuke  follows  from  Wesley,  but  Coke  goes  on  as 
lusual  fully  in  his  confidence,  presiding  in  his  confer- 
fenceSj  &c. ;  and  yet,  alas !  his  American  proceedings 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  107 

were  an  ambitious  plot,  contrary  to  the  will  of  Wesley,  j 
We  had  borne  the  title  ^' JSpiscopal  Church,"  witEj 
Wesley's  full  approval,  for  four  years,  when,  on  thej 
use  of  the  personal  title  of  bishop,  Wesley  writes  liis| 
letter  to  Asbury ;  and  yet  it  is  not  the  mere  personal| 
title  he  condemns,  but  the  office  which,  for  four  years,  j^ 
he  had  left  uncondemned,  nay,  had  vindicated !  All| 
the  English  standard  writers  fully  understand  the  mat-| 
ter  as  we  do  and  as  Coke  did,  and  even  the  writer) 
from  whom  Wesley's  letter  is  taken  guards  it  agamstl 
the  construction  of  our  enemies ;  yet  they  deliberately  r' 
quote  the  letter  against  our  system  of  government,^ 
without  a  word  of  quaUfication,  and  in  the  "  face  and> 
eyes"  of  the  whole  English  and  American  Church,^ 
including  the  very  author  from  whom  they  take  it !   "^ 

The  latest  party  of  seceders  from  our  church,  not- 
withstanding the  obvions  lack  of  candor  in  the  pro- 
ceeding, have  frequently  quoted  this  letter  not  in 
reference  to  the  name,  but  to  the  ojjice  of  bishop,  as 
held  among  us.  For  several  years  their  organ  has 
quoted  bare  sentences  from  it  as  a  motto.  When 
rebuked  for  this  unquestionable  deception,  they  have 
replied  as  f9llows : — 

1.  "We  ^ive  Mr.  ^^sleyj  own  language.  If  the 
letter  does  not  prove  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  o^ce 
as  well  as  the  name,  very  well :  we  give  it  just  as  Mr. 
Wesley  wrote  it.  We  do  not  wish  to  prove  by  it  any- 
thing which  the  letter  itself  does  not  prove.  We  did 
not  intend  to  make  any  remarks  upon  it,  had  our  oppo- 
nents  let  us  alone." 

It  is  preposterous  for  these  gentlemen  to  reply  that  j 
they  give  Mr.  Wesley's  words  without  note  or  com- 1 
ment,  that  they  speak  for  themselves,  and  that  their  i 


108  CnUKCII   GOVERNMENT. 

(paper  is  not  responsible  for  a  misapprehension  of  them. 
iSupposc  a  band  of  fanatics  should  obtain  the  control 
jof  the  commonwealth,  tlo  away  the  penal  code,  fanati- 
Ically  enacting  that  every  crime,  however  small,  should 
5  be  punished  wuth  death,  and  over  their  tribunal  should 
linscribe  the  text,  "The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die ;" 
I  what  man  in  his  senses  would  not  say  that  this  was  a 
fearful  perversion  of  God's  holy  word  ?     The  passage 
would  be  literally  time  in  its  quotation,  but  utterly 
false  in  its  application.     If  they  should  assert  that  it 
is  without  comment,  would  this  palhate  the  abuse? 
|No!    for  the  very  tribunal  and  all  its   proceedings 
/would  be  a  standing  comment  on  it,  speaking  a  false 
sense  louder  than  any  verbal  comment  could  speak. 
The  illustration  holds  entirely  in  this  case.     !Mr.  Wes- 
ley not  only  approved,  but  estahlished  our  episcopacy, 
land  provided  the  very  forms  of  ordination  for  its  per- 
petuation; but  he  Avished  not  the  "svord  bishop  to  be 
used,  because  of  the  abuse  of  the  word  in  England. 
He  wrote  a  letter  to  Asbury  on  this  point.     The  sece- 
dcrs  set  themselves  in  array  against  the  form  of  gov- 
ernment thus  appointed  by  Wesley,  and,  finding  this 
letter,  (against  the  name,  but  not  against  the  thing,) 
quote  single  sentences,  and  by  omitting  all  explana- 
tion, virtually  represent  by  it  that  Wesley  was  opposed 
)to  the  tiling,  not  merely  the  7iame,  and  this  notwith- 
) standing  the  English  author  from  whom  it  is  quoted 
\expressly  guards  against  such  an  abuse.     The  whole 

!  character  of  their  opposition  is  a  comment  on  the  pas- 
,  sage,  giving  a  perfectly  false  meaning  to  it.  We  point 
Uhe  eye  of  the  Christian  public  to  this  amazing  indica- 
jtion,  and  say,  "Judge  ye."  Is  this  honorable?  Is  it 
t honest  ?     Such  chicanery  may  have  a  temporary  effect 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  109 

with  the  uninformed,  but  sensible  and  good  men  will 
turn  from  it  to  blush  for  truth  and  religion. 

2.  "  The  question  is/'  say  our  opponents,  "  did  Wes- 
ley design  to  establish  an  episcopacy  possessed  of,  and 
wielding,  the  prerogatives  of  the  present  Methodist 
bishops  ?  Tliis  is  the  true  point  at  issue.  He  only 
intended  that  superintendents  should  'preside  in  the 
conferences  as  moderators.''  These  sentiments  were 
in  the  old  Methodist  Episcopal  Disciplines  once,  but 
have  long  since  been  left  out;  so  that  it  is  very  evi- 
dent  Mr.  Wesley  never  intended  to  establish  such  an 
episcopacy  as  now  exists  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.'^  "" 

What  will  the  reader  think  when  we  assure  him 
that  the  quotation  here  given  is  from  the  original 
Minutes  prepared  for  the  American  Church  under 
Wesley's  eye,  and  that  it  is  but  a  single  member  of 
the  sentence,  expressing  only  07ie  of  the  duties  of  a 
superintendent;  while  the  omitted  members  express 
every  other  duty  which  has  ever  pertained  to  our 
episcopal  office,  except  such  as  are  merely  incidental  ? 
Here  is  the  whole  passage : — 

25th  Question:  "What  is  the  office  of  a  superin-j 
tendent?"  The  answer  is:  "To  ordain  superintend- j 
ents,  elders,  and  deacons ;  to  preside  as  a  moderator^ 
in  our  conferences ;  to  fix  the  appointments  of  the  j 
preachers,  and,  in  the  intervals  of  conference,  to  change, 
suspend,  and  receive  preachers,  as  necessity  may  re-j 
quire  ;  and  to  receive  and  try  appeals." 

Wesley  had  actually  vested  all  these  powers,  except 
ordination,  in  Asbury,  before  he  thus  organized  them 
in  the  church.  They  remain  now  precisely  as  they 
were,  except  in  incidental  matters ;  and  in  these  there 


110  cnuRcn  government. 

has  been  more  of  an  abatement  than  an  increase  of 
powers.     (See  Hedding  on  the  Discipline.) 

3.  Our  opponents  _saj  that^  "Wesley  did  not  esta- 
blish such  an  episcopacy  in  England."  And  why? 
He  gives  the  reasons  in  his  circular  letter  to  the 
American  Church,  as  we  have  quoted  above.  There 
*"  there  were  bishops  ;"  here,  "  there  were  none."  The 
American  Revolution  removed  his  "  scruples "  in  re- 
spect to  this  country,  but  they  remained  in  respect  to 
England.  He  intended  that  the  English  Methodists 
should  abide  in  the  church,  and  died  with  this  inten- 
tion. Wesley's  views  on  this  subject  are  so  well 
known  that  it  is  useless  to  delay  here. 

4.  "About  the  same  time  that  he  appointed  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Asbnry  superintendents  in  America, 
he  also  appointed  a  superintendent  for  Scotland.  But 
neither  Scotland,  nor  Canada.  n<  >r  any  other  ])art  of  the 
world,  save  the  United  State-^.  ha-  sucli  an  episcopacy." 

r-  Respecting  Canada,  Ave  r(  ]»1\ .  tliat  it  was  then  placed 
under  the  supervision  of  our  bishops,  and  therefore 
needed  no  such  separate  appointment.  To  the  asser-"" 
tion  respecting  Scotland,  we  give  a  simple  and  peremp- 
tory denial.  Mr.  Wesley  never  ordained  such  a  su- 
perintendent for  Scotland  as  he  appointed  for  America. 
Moore,  Watson,  Jackson,  &c.,  and  Wesley  himself,  in 
his  own  Journal,  show  that  he  merely  ordained  preach- 
ers to  administer  the  sacraments  in  Scotland ;  but  this 
was  not  that  for  which  Coke  was  ordained,  for  he  had 

!been  doing  this  as  a  presbyter  for  years.  The  Scotch 
preachers  were  not  ordained  in  order  to  ordain  others^ 
fbut  to  administer  the  sacraments;  while  Coke  was 
^ordained  expressly  to  ordain  others,  that  the  latter 
}  might  administer  the  sacraments.     The  Scotch  ordi- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  Ill 

nations  were  precisely  like  those  of  Vasey  and  What- ) 
coat,  at  the  time  of  Coke's  ordination ;  but  Coke's,  as  \ 
we  have  seen,  was  entirely  distinct.  He  had  received  j 
such  ordination  years  before. 

And  now,  looking  again  at  this  series  of  arguments,  [ 
will  we  not  be  acquitted  of  presumption  when  we  say  ; 
that  we  may  here  make  a  triumphant  stand,  surround- 
ed by  evidence  accumulated  and  impregnable  ?  That  \ 
noble  ecclesiastical  system  under  which  it  has  pleased  | 
God  to  give  us  and  our  families  spiritual  shelter  and  \ 
sweet  fellowship  with  his  saints,  and  whose  efficacy  is  j 
the  wonder  of  the  Christian  world,  is  not — as  our  oppo-  / 
nents  would  represent — an  oppressive  contrivance,  an  j 
imposition  of  the  clergy,  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  our  f 
great  founder,  but  was  legitimately  received  from  his  / 
hand  as  the  providential  agent  of  Methodism.  ^ 

Mr.  Wesley's  strong  repugnance  to  the  mere  name 
of  bishop  was  not  expressed  till  after  it  had  been 
adopted  by  our  church,  or  it  would  probably  not  have 
been  adopted.  Still,  the  American  Church  was  now 
a  separate  organization,  and  was  at  perfect  liberty  to 
dissent  from  Mr.  Wesley  on  a  matter  of  mere  expe- 
diency like  the  present.  The  church  thought  it  had 
good  reasons  to  adopt  the  name.  The  American 
Methodists  were  mostly  of  English  origin.  The  peo- 
ple of  this  country  among  whom  Methodism  was  most 
successful  were  either  from  England  or  of  immediate 
English  descent,  and  had  been  trained  to  consider 
episcopacy  a  wholesome  and  apostolical  government 
of  the  church.  We  approved  and  had  the  thing — why 
not,  then,  have  the  name ;  especially  as,  without  the 
name,  the  thing  itself  would  be  liable  to  lose  in  the 
eyes  of  the  people  its  peculiar  character,  and  thereby 


112  cnuRcn  government. 

fail  in  that  appeal  to  their  long-established  opinions 
which  wc  had  a  right,  both  from  principle  and  expe- 
diency, to  make  ?    The  English  Establishment  had  been 
dissolved  in  this  country  by  the    Revolution.     The 
Protestant  Episcopalians  had  not  yet  been  organized 
on  an  independent  basis.     Our  own  organization  and 
the  ordination  of  our  bishops  preceded  theirs.  The  Me- 
thodist Church  had,  therefore,  a  clear  right  to  present 
itself  to  the  American  public  as  competent  to  aid  in  sup- 
plying the  place  of  the  dissolved  Establishment,  having 
the  same  essential  principles  without  its  peculiar  defects. 
^     May  not  the  circumstance  of  our  assuming  an  epis- 
S  copal  character,  nominally  as  well  as  really,  be  con- 
( sidered  providential  ?     Episcopacy,  both  in  this  country 
jand  England,  lias,  since  that  date,  reached  an  excess 
'.of  presumption  and  arrogance.     The  moderate  party, 
(holding  the  sentiments  of  the  first  part  of  this  work, 
j  and  once  declared,  by  Bishop  "White,  to  include  a  large 
\  majority  of  American  Episcopalians,  has  nearly  disap- 

ipeared.  Was  it  not  providential,  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, that  a  body  of  Christians  should  appear, 
(exceeding  every  other  in  zeal  and  usefulness,  and 
nominally  and  practically  bearing  an  episcopal  charac- 
ter without  any  of  its  presumptuous  pretensions? 
Amidst  the  uncharitable  assumptions  of  prelatical 
Episcopalians  in  our  ot\ti  land,  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  stands  forth  a  monument  of  the  laborious 
and  simple  episcopacy  of  the  early  ages,  seen  and  read 
^of  all  men ;  its  success,  as  well  as  its  humility,  con- 
iti-asting  it  signally  with  its  domineering,  but  feebler 
sister.  It  has  thus  practically  vindicated  episcopacy 
las  an  expedient  form  of  ecclesiastical  government,  and 
^assuredly  it  needs  vindication  in  these  days. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  113 


PART   III 


GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH— ITS  STRUCTURE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

LAY  REPRESENTATION. 

Difference  between  civil  and  ecclesiastical  organizations — Con- 
formity to  our  civil  system  not  common  in  our  voluntary  secular 
associations — Nor  in  religious  associations — Nothing  in  our  sys- 
tem requiring  it — Its  impracticability — Probable  results  of  such 
a  change. 

The  chief  innovation  in   the  government  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  demanded  by  seceders, 
is,  that  it  should  be  modeled  on  the  representative  sys- 
tem of  the  nation.     Let  it  be  distinctly  understood  in 
the  outset  that  the  question  is  not  whether  the  laity 
should  have  a  due  control  of  the  government  of  the 
church, — we   shall  show  in  the  sequel   that,  in   the 
Methodist   Episcopal  Church,  they  have  this   abun- 
dantly,— hut  whether  this  control  shall  he  put  into  the 
representative  form  of  our  civil  system  f     Without  dis 
cussing  here  the  abstract  right  of  individuals  to  such 
a  claim  in  a  compact  which  they  voluntarily  entered 
and  can  voluntarily  leave,  and  which  stipulated  no  [ 
such  arrangement  when  they  entered  it,  we  shall  con-  { 
sider  more  particularly  the  inexpediency  and  imprac-\ 
ticahility  of  the  proposed  change.     Whatever  may  be 
said  of  abstract  right  in  the  case,  it  will  undoubtedly 
be  admitted  that  an  abstract  right  may  be  voluntarily 


114  CHURCH  government. 

resigned  for  a  supposed  good.  This,  indeed,  is  a  neces- 
sary condition  of  civil  government, — the  surrender  of 
certain  personal  rights  for  the  greater  security  of  others 
more  important.  Every  man  lias  an  abstract  right  to 
his  own  property ;  but,  by  becoming  a  member  of  the 
state,  he  so  far  resigns  this  right  as  to  allow  his  rulers, 
or  a  majority  of  his  fellow-citizens,  to  appropriate  a 
portion  of  his  property  by  taxation,  even  against  his 
own  opinion  of  its  necessity.  Self-preservation  is  a 
right  of  the  individual ;  but  civil  government  may  re- 
quire the  sacrifice  of  life  in  the  pubhc  defense.  The 
Methodist  polity  is  based  on  such  a  mutual  surrender 
of  rights — bearing,  however,  far  more  onerously  on  the 
ministry  than  on  the  laity ;  and  if  the  principle  should 
be  admitted  that  the  proposed  change  ought  to  be  made 
because  it  is  a  natural  right,  it  is  obvious  that  the  most 
valued  features  of  the  system  must  be  at  once  sacri- 
ficed, and  Methodism  be  no  more  Methodism ;  for,  on 
this  principle,  the  itinerancy  (under  God  the  strength 
of  our  system)  must  cease,  it  being  doubtless  an  ab- 
stract right  of  the  churches  to  choose  their  own  preach- 
ers, leaders,  and  other  oflicers,  and  also  of  the  preachers 
to  choose  their  own  fields  of  labor.  Unquestionably 
the  claim  of  these  rights  by  the  people,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  preachers  on  the  other,  would  reduce  us 
at  once  to  Congregationalism,  and  extinguish  the  pecu- 
liar efliciency  of  our  cause.  The  change  demanded 
should,  therefore,  be  considered  merely  in  the  hght  of 
expediency,  not  of  right.  If  it  could  be  proved  more 
useful  than  our  present  arrangement,  we  are  morally 
obliged  to  adopt  it :  if  not,  we  are  at  perfect  liberty  to 
reject  it.  We  believe  it  to  be  neither  necessary  nor 
desirable — 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  115 

1.  Because  there  is  no  such  analogy  between  our 
relation  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  our 
relation  to  the  state,  as  is  asserted  hy  the  advocates  of 
the  proposed  change.  "The  two  governments  are  to- 
tally dissimilar  in  their  origin,  their  authority,  and 
their  design^* 

They  differ  in  their  origin.  Our  civil  government 
originated  with  the  people.  They  were  necessarily 
antecedent  to  their  rulers  and  constitution,  the  sources 
of  power  and  change  in  the  government.  The  govern- 
ment of  our  church,  as  has  been  shown,*  originated  pro- 
videntially with  "Wesley  and  his  colleagues.  It  was 
originally  and  of  necessity  in  their  hands,  and  its  sub- 
sequent administrators  are  such  by  virtue  of  its  pro- 
visions as  then  established.  All  who  have  come  under 
it  have  done  so  with  an  understanding  of  its  terms,  and 
a  voluntary  consent  to  them.  It  was  a  mutual  compact 
for  certain  ends  ;  and  those  ends  have  confessedly  been 
attaiued,  and  the  terms  of  the  compact  maintained 
inviolate. 

They  differ  in  their  authority.  "  The  civil  govern- 
ment claims  our  allegiance  from  the  very  circumstance 
of  our  being  born  within  its  jurisdiction;  and  long 
before  we  are  admitted  to  the  right  of  suffrage,  our 
property,  our  liberty,  and  our  life  itself,  depend  on  the 
authority  of  the  government.  Our  obedience  to  the 
laws  of  the  country  does  not  depend  on  our  individual 

*  Bond's  Appeal,  Baltimore,  1828.  This  is  a  document  of 
remarkable  ability.  It  had  a  decisive  influence  in  settling  the 
disputes  of  1828.  We  are  much  indebted  to  it  in  the  present 
part  of  this  volume.  Besides  the  quotations  in  arguments  1,  4, 
6,  and  7,  we  have  condensed  much  from  it  in  1  and  7.  Our 
quotations  are  also  much  condensed. 


lie  CHURCH   GOVEnNMKNT. 

consent  to  them,  either  before  or  after  we  arrive  at 
age.     We  may  consider  them  grievous  and  oppressive, 
but  we  have  no  altcniative  but  to  obey.     We  can  in 
no  way  withdraw  from  this  allegiance  but  by  abandon- 
ing our  country,  and  circumstances  may  place  even 
this  out  of  our  power.     There  arises,  therefore,  from 
the  nature  of  our  civil  obligations,  a  right  to  participate 
in  the  enactment  of  the  laws  by  which  we  are  to  be 
governed,  as  soon  as  we  are  deemed  capable  of  exer- 
cising this  right.     But  change  the  nature  of  these  obli- 
gations— make  membership  in  the^i'ommunityand  obe- 
dience to  the  laws  a  matt^cr  of  choice,  and  the  rights 
which  belong  to  the  former  relation  no  longer  remain. 
The  rights  and  the  obligations  are  necessarily  recipro- 
cal.    Where  obedience  is  necessary,  the  corresponding 
rights  are  inherent ;  but  where  the  obedience  is  volun- 
tary,  the  privileges  are  conditional,  and  are  in  extent 
no  more  than  are  stipulated  for  in  the  contract  between 
those  who  govern  and  those  who  are  governed.     Now 
^this  is  precisely  the  relation  we  sustain  to  the  Method- 
;'  ist  Episcopal  Church.     It  did  not  extend  its  jurisdiction 
.  over  us  in  our  infancy,  nor  until  we  voluntarily  entered 
■within  its  pale.     Our  becoming  members  was  a  volun- 
jtary  act,  done  with  a  previous  knowledge  of  all  the 
rights  we  were  required  to  surrender,  and  the  privileges 
we  acquired  by  the  contract.     We  could  not  carry  with 
us  into  this  voluntary  association  any  natural  rights 
incompatible  with  the  contract  we  then  entered  into ; 
land  if  the  right  to  participate  in  the  legislative  power 
was  no  part  of  the  conditions  we  stipulated  for,  can  we 
,  now  complain  that  it  is  improperly  withheld  from  us  ? 
*  Surely  not.     If  to  this  we  add  that  there  remains  to 
{us  the  right  of  dissolving  the  obligations  we  have  volun- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  117 

tarily  taken  upon  ourselves,  what  becomes  of  the  anal- 1 
ogy  which  has  been  so  strangely  insisted  upon  between  { 
our  civil  and  ecclesiastical  relations  ?  or  what  of  the  f 
charge  of  usurpation  and  tp-anny  which  has  been  so } 
repeatedly  made  against  our  church  ? 

"The  rights  which  a  Methodist  possesses,  as  such, 
are  purely  conventional.  They  are  not  natural,  but 
acquired  rights,  and  they  are  determined  by  the  articles 
of  association,  contained  in  our  book  of  Discipline.  The 
church  is  a  voluntary  association,  entered  into  for  reli- 
gious purposes.  Whoever  enters  into  its  communion 
is  entitled  to  all  the  immunities  which  the  articles  of 
.association  hold  out  to  him,  and  no  more.  If  he  finds, 
upon  experiment,  that  the  religious  advantages  he  ac- 
quires do  not  compensate  liim  for  the  sacrifices  he  is 
required  to  make,  he  has  an  indefeasible  right  to  with- 
draw from  the  community;  but  he  has  no  right  to 
demand  of  the  church  to  change  her  economy  for  his 
accommodation." — Dr.  Bond. 

Is  it  alledged  in  reply  that  many  enter  the  church 
young,  or  ignorant  of  the  terms  of  its  compact  ?  We 
answer,  It  is  not  responsible  for  this  ;  its  Discipline  is 
made  accessible  to  all;  all  are  urged  to  read  it  and 
judge  for  themselves.  All  that  can  be  demanded  of 
the  church  is,  that  when  such  arrive  at  mature  age  or 
better  information,  she  should  allow  them  to  dissolve 
their  connection  with  the  compact,  if  they  find  it  not 
satisfactory. 

Is  it  further  replied  that  the  members  of  the  church 
have  invested  property  in  church  edifices,  &c.,  and  ought 
not  to  be  required  to  sacrifice  it  ?  We  answer,  that  in 
respect  to  our  free  houses,  (and  m.ost  of  them  are/ree,) 
such  investments  were  not  terms  of  memhershif.    They 


118  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

were  voluntary  benefactions^  by  which  the  donors  ac- 
quired no  'property  in  such  free  churches.  They  were 
erected  for  any  and  all  who  choose  to  use  them ;  and 
if  they  are  secured,  by  the  terms  of  their  erection,  to 
the  doctrines  and  usages  of  Methodism,  this  also  must 
have  been  the  voluntary  act  of  the  donors.  The 
original  design  being  fulfilled,  no  complaint  can  be  just 
on  the  part  of  those  who  may  choose,  after  such  chari- 
ties, to  leave  the  cause  to  which  they  were  given.  It 
should  be  remembered,  also,  that  many  who  arc  dead, 
and  many  who  are  not  members  of  the  church,  have 
contributed  to  such  free  houses  on  the  same  terms  and 
for  the  same  beneficent  purpose.  Has  a  man  a  right 
to  reclaim  a  charity,  which,  by  being  blended  with  that 
of  others,  dead  and  alive,  cannot  be  returned  without 
frustrating  an  object  of  public  beneficence,  and  that, 
too,  when  the  original  terms  of  the  grant  are  fully  ad- 
hered to  ?  Such  a  claim,  it  is  clear,  by  destrojHIng  all 
grounds  of  the  permanent  security  of  charitable  be- 
quests, would  soon  suppress  all  similar  liberality.  Such 
a  claim  is  no  more  admissible  in  this  case  than  in  any 
other  benevolent  foundation.  So  much  {or  free  houses. 
In  respect  to  the  pewed,  where,  as  in  New-England, 
the  seceding  member  has  individual  property  in  them, 
he  voluntarily  contracted  for  the  terms  on  wdiich  it  is 
held,  and,  on  leaving,  can  dispose  of  it  to  others  on  the 
same  terms,  precisely  in  the  manner  that  he  can  dis- 
pose of  his  bank  stock,  or  other  property  held  by 
contract  with  public  bodies. 

Again,  they  differ  in  their  design.  "  Civil  govern- 
ment is  instituted  to  p]ft)mote  the  welfare  of  those  in- 
cluded within  the  compact.  Their  own  interest  is  the 
only  object  to  be  provided  for,  and  therefore  no  more 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  119 

natural  rights  are  to  be  surrendered  than  are  necessary 
to  secure  the  object  of  the  association.  Such  a  com- 
munity is  not  expected  to  provide  for  any  without  the 
pale  of  its  jurisdiction ;  for  those  who  contribute  no- 
thing to  the  common  stock  cannot  be  entitled  to  receive 
from  the  contributions  of  others. 

"  Now,  the  design  of  our  religious  association  is 
essentially  different.  It  is  true,  we  propose  to  increase 
the  religious  advantages  of  our  members ;  but  then  our 
system  is  essentially  a  missionary  one.  It  is  intended 
for  those  who  belong  not  to  the  conununity;  to  send 
the  gospel  to  those  who  are  too  poor  to  pay  for  it,  or 
too  ignorant  to  appreciate  its  value,  and  therefore  do 
not  desire  it.  Is  it,  then,  strange  that  such  an  associa- 
tion, formed  for  purposes  so  widely  different  from  those 
which  influence  us  in  the  organization  of  civil  compacts, 
should  also  differ  from  civil  government  as  much  in  its 
structure  as  it  does  in  its  design?  Will  not  such  a 
religious  conununity  be  necessarily  called  upon  to  make 
sacrifices  of  individual  rights  and  advantages  which  it 
is  not  at  all  necessary  to  make  as  members  of  civil  so- 
ciety? To  combine  the  twofold  advantages  of  pro- 
viding pastors  for  the  church  and  missionaries  for  the 
world,  and  fulfill  the  duties  incumbent  upon  both,  the 
regulations  required  for  such  an  arrangement  being 
such  as  chiefly  relate  to  the  distribution  of  ministerial 
labor,  the  right  of  making  such  regulations  has  been 
left  to  the  ministry  themselves ;  and  the  people,  or  laity, 
have  moreover  relinquished  the  right  of  electing  their 
own  pastors,  because  the  exercise  of  this  right  was 
incompatible  with  the  plan  of  an  itinerating  missionary 
ministry. 

"  But  if  this  original  missionary  design  called  for 


120  CUURCn  GOVERNMENT. 

important  sacrifices  on  the  part  of  the  laity,  did  it  not 
demand  a  still  more  important  surrender  of  natural 
rights  on  the  part  of  our  itinerant  ministers?  They 
not  only  relinquish  the  right  of  selecting  their  own 
field  of  labor,  but  submit  to  the  absolute  disposal  of  a 
general  superintendent,  whom  they  have  clothed  with 
authority  to  send  them  to  any  part  of  the  land;  and 
that,  too,  without  any  guaranty  from  those  to  whom 
they  are  sent  that  they  shall  be  supplied  with  even  the 
necessaries  of  life. 

"We  can  conceive  of  no  sacrifices  of  individual 
rights,  comforts,  and  conveniences,  superior  to  those 
which  our  traveling  preachers  are  thus  called  upon  to 
make,  in  order  to  fulfill  the  primitive  missionaiy  design 
of  our  institutions." — D)\  Bond. 

We  have  thus  far  shown  that  the  essential  difference 
between  our  civil  and  ecclesiastical  systems,  in  respect 
to  their  origin,  design,  and  the  obedience  they  demand, 
admits  of  no  such  analogy  between  them  as  requires  a 
conformity  of  the  one  to  the  other. 

2.  We  observe,  further,  that  such  a  conformitj^  to 
the  model  of  our  political  system  is  not  considered  neceS' 
sary  nor  desirable  in  most  of  the  voluntary  organizations 
oj^  secidar  character  in  the  land.  They  adapt  them- 
selves to  theu'  designs  and  emergencies,  and  are  con- 
tent with  such  arrangements  as  will  best  effect  their 
objects,  controlled  by  such  checks  and  balances  as  will 
prevent  abuses.  Tins  is  precisely  the  arrangement  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  we  shall  by  and  by 
see.  Nay,  our  civil  government  itself  presents,  in  some 
of  its  collateral  branches,  similar  deviations  from  its 
general  model.  It  maintains  an  army  and  navy.  The 
power  of  military  command  is  absolute.     The  only 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  121 

maxim  of  the  soldier  is  to  "  obey,"  if  it  carry  him  to 
the  cannon's  mouth.  How  would  the  representative 
principle  work  amidst  the  emergencies  of  the  camp  or 
of  the  high  seas  ?  What  propriety  is  there,  then,  in 
this  indiscriminate  cry  of  "  republicanism,"  in  reference 
to  voluntary  compacts.  We  are  sure  that  no  American 
citizens  love  republicanism  better  than  the  members 
of' our  church,  but  this  boisterous  fallacy  has  always 
proved  too  flimsy  to  beguile  their  sound  discernment. 
They  believe  that,  being  under  the  broad  shelter  of  a 
free  civil  system,  to  which  all  other  organizations  are 
responsible,  the  latter  may  assume  any  form  that  con- 
venience or  efficiency  may  justify  without  serious 
danger.  Their  church  system  is  altogether  militant^ 
requiring  great  sacrifices,  great  energy,  and  decisive 
promptness.  They  believe  that  they  can  have  such  a 
system,  with  its  pacific  and  beneficent  ends,  under  the 
civil  system  of  the  land,  with  as  much,  nay,  more  pro- 
priety, than  the  latter  can  maintain  an  army  or  navy, 
or  than  pecuniary  companies,  involving  the  property 
of  thousands,  can  deviate  from  the  precise  model  of  the 
state ;  but,  by  the  sweeping  generalizations  of  our  op- 
ponents, we  would  not  only  be  compelled  to  abolish  our 
military  and  naval  regimen,  but  also  the  authority  of 
the  parent  in  the  family,  the  government  of  most  of 
our  literary  institutions,  and  the  discretionary  arrange- 
ments of  most  of  our  business  combinations. 

3.  The  conformity  to  a  secular  system,  demanded  by 
our  opponents,  is  considered  unnecessarij  and  inexpe- 
dient  hy  most,  if  not  all  ecclesiastical  organizations  of 
the  country.  All  Protestant  ones  provide,  we  believe, 
a  suitable  popular  control  of  their  respective  systems, 
as  we  shall  show  ours  does ;  but  we  know  of  none  that 
6 


122  CHURCH  government. 

tlocs  not  deviate  essentially  from  our  civil  forms  in  the 
exercise  of  that  control ;  and,  upon  a  minute  compari- 
son, it  will  be  found,  we  think,  tliat  the  Methodist  sys- 
tem includes  as  much  security  of  the  i)opuUir  rights  as 
any  one  of  them. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  has  a  representa- 
tive system,  but  with  such  clerical  powers  as  can  en- 
tirely control  it.  However  unanimous  the  General 
Convention  may  be,  they  cannot  appoint  a  bishop  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  existing  bishops.  Our  bishops 
have  no  voice  whatever  in  the  choice  of  their  colleagues. 
"WTiatever  law  may  be  passed,  and  with  whatever  una- 
nimity, by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Convention,  the 
bishops  can  nullify  it  by  an  absolute  veto  power.  Me- 
thodist bishops  have  no  veto,  nor  even  vote  in  making 
any  law  whatever,  though  it  should  affect  themselves 
alone. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  has  laymen  in  its  ecclesi- 
astical bodies,  but  not  on  the  representative  system — 
none  being  admissible,  besides  the  clergy,  except  ruling 
elders,  who  are  elected  for  life ;  and  therefore,  instead 
of  representing  the  views  of  the  present  church,  may 
represent  only  those  of  ten,  twenty,  or  thirty  years  ago, 
the  date  of  their  election.  The  Congregationalists  cer- 
tainly do  not  follow  our  representative  system,  but 
exercise  the  popular  control  without  limitation  ;  a  mode 
which,  in  large  bodies,  is  but  anarchy,  and,  among  our 
Congregational  brethren,  has  been  attended  with  no 
little  distraction.  The  Quakers  have  no  voting  what- 
ever, but  follow,  in  all  things,  the  counsels  of  seniority 
and  experience,  and  find  no  inconvenience  in  tliis 
course. 

The  Protestant  Methodists  themselves,  after  all  their 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  123 

urgency  for  republican  rights  in  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
have  adopted  a  course  which  violates  the  fundamental 
principle  of  republican  representation  by  an  unequal 
representation  of  different  classes.  They  allow  as 
many  representatives  for  their  few  clergymen  as  they 
do  for  all  the  hundreds  of  their  laity,  and  the  late  sece- 
ders  have  adopted  the  same  aristocratic  arrangement. 
If  adopted  into  our  system,  it  would  give  to  our  four 
thousand  preachers  the  same  representation  that  it 
would  allow  to  our  more  than  milh'on  members  !* 
This,  certainly,  is  not  fair  republicanism.  If  we  are 
to  be  reproached  for  judging  the  plan  inexpedient,  how 
much  more  credit  is  due  to  our  neighbors,  who,  with 
the  loftiest  pretensions  to  it,  present  such  a  distortion 
of  it  ?  So  badly,  too,  has  the  innovation  worked  among 
our  Protestant  Methodist  brethren,  that  one  of  the  most 
eminent  leaders  of  the  movement.  Rev.  A.  Shinn,  wrote 
an  admonitory  letter  to  the  leaders  of  the  late  secession 
on  the  subject,  declaring  that  "  they  have  had  no  little 
difficulty  in  keeping  their  denomination  from  being 
scattered  to  the  winds  by  a  loose  and  deplorable  spirit 
of  anarchy."  Although  he  wishes  popular  representa- 
tion in  the  General  Conference,  and  thinks  that,  in  a 
modified  form,  it  might  succeed  in  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence, yet  he  admits  fully  its  mischievous  effects  in  his 
own  church.  Referring  to  a  modification  of  it,  which 
he  attempted  to  introduce  in  the  convention  in  1830, 
he  says :  "  I  was  overruled ;  and  from  that  day  until 
now  the  evidence  has  been  constant  and  uniform,  that 

*  The  reader  will  notice,  here  and  elsewhere,  that  these  pages 
were  written  before  the  late  division  of  the  church.  The  argu- 
ment is  not,  however,  affected  by  this  fact. 


124  cnuRcn  government. 

the  love  of  power  in  the  sovereign  people  as  regularly 
turns  a  deaf  ear  to  argument,  as  does  the  love  of  power 
in  bishops  or  itinerant  ministers."*  The  project  has 
certainly  failed,  after  most  deplorable  strife  for  its 
introduction. 

In  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  bishops  have 
the  sole  right  of  admitting  persons  to  membership  in 
the  church,  by  confirmation.  In  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  no  one  can  be  admitted  -without  six 
months'  probation,  and  then  by  recommendation  of  a 
lay  officer,  and  an  examination  before  the  church. 

In  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  the  expulsion 
of  a  member  is  solely  with  the  clergyman,  and  there  is 
no  appeal  but  to  the  bishop.  In  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  no  member  can  be  expelled  but  after 
trial  by  the  church,  or  a  committee  of  the  church,  and 
has  then  an  appeal  to  the  quarterly  conference,  cliiefly 
composed  of  lay  officers;  while  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  the  preacher  and  ruling  elder  (appointed  for 
life)  alone  try  and  expel  members;  and  in  the  Con- 
gregational, juries,  as  in  secular  courts,  are  not  allowed, 
and  however  intense  the  public  excitement  in  any  given 
case,  the  whole  society  have  the  right  of  trying  and 
punishing  the   accused ;   a  mode  certainly  liable  to 

*  See  his  letter  in  the  "  True  Wesleyan,"  February  18,  1843. 

i  He  further  says  in  this  letter,  that  "  the  love  of  power  is  a  deep 

\  1  disease  in  human  nature,  and  it  is  not  confined  to  any  one  order 

i  of  men.     The  sovereign  people  are  as  proud  of  their  sovereignty 

I  as  a  monarch  upon  his  throne  ;  and  the  lawless  rage  of  a  mob  is 

I  'no  better  than  that  of  an  individual  tyrant.     If  you  put  all  power 

into  the  democratic  body,  they  will  soon  show  themselves  '  many 

masters  ;'  and  a  destructive  anarchy  will  be  as  great  a  traitor  to 

i   the  Redeemer  as  a  domineering  hierarchy."     Rather  aristocratic 

^sentiments,  certainly,  for  a  Methodist  seceder. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  125 

serious  objections,  and  which  would  be  most  calamitous 
in  civil  governments. 

In  the  Presbyterian  Church,  candidates  for  the  min- 
istry are  admitted  to  the  office  bj  the  presbytery ;  and 
in  the  Congregational,  the  associations  of  the  clergy 
alone  admit  them ;  while,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the  people  make  the  ministry,  and,  as  we  shall 
show  hereafter,  by  a  process  remarkably  minute. 

In  most,  if  not  all  Protestant  churches,  the  clergy 
stipulate  with  the  people  for  their  salaries,  and  can 
prosecute  them  at  law.  In  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  they  can  rely  only  on  the  voluntary  contribu- 
tions of  the  people,  and  have  ho  legal  right  for  the 
supply  of  any  deficiency  in  their  allowance. 

We  might  extend  these  comparisons  further,  but 
they  are  sufficient  to  show  that  our  own  church  admits 
a  popular  influence  not  surpassed  in  the  most  important 
respects  by  any  other.  We  have  not  made  these  com- 
parisons to  disparage  our  brethren  of  other  sects.  Most 
of  the  points  we  have  referred  to  in  their  respective 
systems  are  not  objectionable,  if  counterbalanced  by 
suitable  checks.  They  prove  fully  our  position,  that, 
though  these  sects  may  all  admit  a  sufficient  popular 
control,  it  is  not  exercised  on  the  plan  of  our  repre- 
sentative system.  They,  in  common  with  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  do  not  deem  this  plan  necessary 
or  expedient  in  religious  and  voluntary  organizations. 

4.  There  is  nothing  in  our  system  which  requires  0£ 
justifies  the  proposed  change.  When  such  a  revolution 
is  demanded  it  is  proper  to  inquire.  Where  is  the  ne- 
cessity of  it  ?     What  evil  is  it  to  remedy  ? 

"  Is  it  intended  to  alter  our  articles  of  religion  ?  These 
have  not  been  questioned  by  our  disaffected  members. 


126  CnURCU  GOVERNMENT. 

"Are  the  lay  members  of  the  conference  to  effect  any 
change  in  our  moral  discipline  ?  "With  this,  also,  our 
opponents  have  publicly  expressed  their  satisfaction. 
In  fact,  the  church  did  not  make  it,  and,  therefore,  must 
not  alter  it.  It  is  none  other  than  that  which  is  pre- 
scribed by  the  gospel  itself. 

"  Now  there  remains  nothing  more  in  our  economy, 
in  reference  to  the  laity,  except  those  prudential  regu- 
lations which  have  been  deemed  necessary  to  enable 
the  pastors  of  the  church  to  execute  and  enforce  the 
discipline.  Of  these  regulations,  the  principal  com- 
plaint has  been  against  class-meeting,  as  a  term  of 
membership.  The  class-meeting,  we  beUeve,  the  mem- 
bership are  not  disposed  to  abolish.  On  the  contrary, 
the  great  majority  of  the  church  consider  it  an  in- 
dispensable provision  while  we  retain  an  itinerant 
ministry. 

"  Is  it,  then,  to  legislate  on  the  temporal  concerns  of 
the  church  that  laymen  are  necessary  in  its  business 
bodies  ? 

"The  General  Conference j  the  highest  body  in  our 
'system,  have  never  attempted  to  interfere  authorita- 
tively in  our  temporal  mattei-s.  The  regulations  they 
have  made  on  this  subject  have  been  only  recommend- 
atory. The  General  Conference  have  never  considered 
^themselves  authorized  to  levy  taxes  upon  the  laity,  or  to 
make  any  pecuniary  contribution  a  condition  of  mem- 
bership in  the  churchr — Dr.  Bond. 

Nine-tenths  of  the  business  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence relates  to  the  preachers  alone,  and  it  has  expressly 
declared  that  it  has  no  properly  legislative  powers. 
Though  it  makes  rules  and  regulations  for  its  great 
work,  it  pretends  to  do  nothing  more  in  this  respect 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  127 

than  scripturally  pertains  to  the  ministerial  office.     In 
its  Report  on  the  subject,  in  1828,  it  says : — 

"  We  arrogate  no  authority  to  enact  any  laws  of  our 
own,  either  of  moral  or  of  civil  force.     Our  commission' 
is  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  to  enforce  the  moral  disci-j 
pline,  established  by  the  one  Lawgiver,  by  those  spirit-] 
ual  powers  vested  in  us  as  subordinate  pastors,  who| 
watch  over  souls  as  they  that  must  give  account  to  the  \ 
chief  Shepherd.     We  claim  no  strictly  legislative  pow- 
ers, although  we  grant  the  terms  ^legislature'  and 
*  legislative '  have  been  sometimes  used  even  among 
ourselves.     In  a  proper  sense,  however,  they  are  not 
strictly  appUcable  to  our  General  Conference.     A  mis- 
take on  this  point  has  probably  been  the  source  of  much 
erroneous  reasonuig,  and  of  some  consequent  dissatis- 1 
faction.     Did  we  claim  any  authority  to  enact  laws  to 
affect  either  life  or  limb,  to  touch  the  persons  or  to  tax 
the  property  of  our  members,  they  ought,  unquestionably,  j 
to  he  directly  represented  among  us.     But  they  know  \ 
we  donot.     We  certainly,  then,  exercise  no  civil  legis-  j 
lation.     As  to  the  moral  code,  we  are  subject,  equally 
with  themselves,  to  one  only  Lord.     We  have  no  power 
to  add  to,  to  take  from,  to  alter,  or  to  modify  a  single 
item  of  his  statutes.     Whether  laymen  or  ministers  be 
the  authorized  expounders  and  administrators  of  those 
laws,  we  can  confidently  rely  on  the  good  Christian  \ 
sense  of  the  great  body  of  our  brethren  to  judge. ' 
These  well  know,  also,  that  whatever  expositions  of 
them  we  apply  to  others,  the  same  are  applied  equally  j 
t©   ourselves,  and,  in   some  instances,  with  peculiar  j 
strictness." 

So  much  for  the  General  Conference. 

The  Annual  Conference  is  the  next  body  in  our  sys- 


128  CHURCn  GOVERNMENT. 

tern.  Representation  is  certainly  not  necessary  here, 
for  its  business,  excepting  a  few  judicial  items,  relating 
alone  to  traveling  and  local  preachers,  is  entirely  execu- 
tive, and  concerns  only  the  preachers.  No  rule  or 
regulation  can  be  made  by  it,  except  such  as  is  merely 
advisory.  The  appointments  of  the  preachers  are  not 
a  part  of  its  business ;  they  are  only  announced  in  it. 

The  third  body,  the  Quarterly  Conference^  which  has 
most  control  of  the  pecuniary  and  local  business  of  the 
churches,  is  almost  entirely  composed  of  laymen.  An 
objection  to  the  manner  of  their  appointment  we  shall 
notice  in  the  sequel. 

Is  it  objected  here  that  there  ought  to  be  a  combina- 
tion of  laymen  with  clergymen  in  the  business  bodies 
of  the  church,  however  limited  may  be  the  functions  of 
these  bodies,  because  history  records  the  great  abuse 
of  clerical  power;  as,  for  instance,  in  the  Papal  sys- 
tem ?  "We  reply,  that  they  thus  control  the  one  which 
most  affects  their  interests,  the  Quarterly  Conference, 
and  of  the  others  have  a  full  controlling  power  in 
another  form.  There  is  not  the  remotest  relation 
between  the  historical  instances  referred  to  and  our 
economy.  They  grew  out  of  the  connection  of  the 
church  with  civil  power,  and  its  consequent,  release 
from  the  popular  will.  Our  ministry  is  dependent 
utterly  on  the  voluntary  support  of  the  people.  "  We 
thereby  have  over  them  a  positive  and  absolute  con- 
trol; for,  whenever  their  flocks  shall  withdraw  their 
support,  the  preachers  will  be  under  the  necessity 
of  abandoning  their  present  pastoral  relation,  and  o^ 
betaking  themselves  to  some  secular  occupation.  These 
contributions  depend,  for  their  continuance,  on  the 
^affection  which  the  laity  bear  to  their  pastors.     There 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  129 

can,  therefore,  be  no  danger  of  these  pastors  attempting  < 
to  exercise  any  tyrannical  authority  over  them." — Dr, 
Bond. 

It  does,  then,  appear,  that  the  revolution  in  our  poli- 
ty, so  urgently  demandeji  by  seceders,  is  almost  with- 
out an  object.  There  is  certainly  none  sufficient  to 
justify  the  risk  of  the  change,  especially  when  it  is 
considered  that  the  system  is  already  amply  controlled 
by  the  people  in  another  manner. 

5.  This  plan  would  he  impracticable  on  account  of 
its  pecuyiiary  em barrassments. 

"Suppose  the  delegates  elected;  the  next  question* 
to  be  asked  is,  Who  is  to  bear  then'  traveling  expenses ,  i 
to  and  from  the  conference — the  delegate,  or  his  con- 
stituents ?     And  how  are  they  to  be  provided  for  during 
the  session  ?     If  it  be  answered  that  their  expenses  will 
be  borne  as  those  of  the  traveling  preachers  are  now 
provided  for,  we  reply,  that  the  case  of  the  one  kind 
of  delegates  is  not  at  all  similar  to  that  of  the  other. 
In  the  first  place,  the  preachers,  on  their  road  to  and  ' 
from  the  conference,  labor  all  the  way  in  their  voca 
tion.     They  are  everywhere  received  and  entertained  f 
as  missionaries — as  a  kind  of  common  property,  in 
which  every  member  of  their  church  has  an  equal  in- 
terest.    The  preacher,  on  his  part,  is  accustomed  to  be  , 
entertained  by  the  membership,  without  making  any 
pecuniary  compensation.     He  has  only  to  preach  to 
them,  and  t^  pray  with  them,  and  they  consider  them- 
selves amply  remunerated.     Now  it  will  not  be  so  with 
the  lay  delegates.     Tbey  must  travel  as  other  laymen 
do.     They  will  not  condescend  to  ask  for  accommoda- 
tions of  strangers,  but  will  pay  for  them  at  the  public 

houses. 

6* 


130  cnuRcn  government. 

Q     *'  III  the  second  place,  we  know  tliat  some  difliculty 
fhas   been  always    experienced   in    i)roviding  for  the 
I  preachers  at  the  General  Conference ;  and  hence,  it 
may  be  fairly  questioned  whether  the  members  would 
accommodate  the  lay  delegates  at  all.     And,  on  the 
other  hand,  as  these  delegates  will  not  have  been  ac- 
customed to  receive  gratuitous  entertainment  of  stran- 
gers, they  will  not  feel  free  to  receive  two  or  tlu^ee 
months'  board  for  nothing.     If  this  should  turn  out  to 
be  the  case,  then  we  must  add  the  expenses  of  board- 
ing, lodging,  &c.,  to  the  expenses  of  the  delegate  ;  and, 
j  without  any  allowance  for  the  loss  of  time,  or  for  the 
]  injury  which  his  business  will  sustain  by  the  negligence 
*  or  improvidence  of  those  who  superintend  his  affairs 
while  he  is  from  home,  the  expenses  of  a  delegate  will 
be  no  inconsiderable  sum. 
^     "  AYe  think  it  will  be  impossible  for  the  distant  sec- 
\  lions  of  our  church  to  find  men  who  are  able  to  meet 
(►these  expenses,  and  give  the  time  which  the  duties  of 
I  a  delegate  will  necessarily  require.     They  cannot  be 
^  found  among  any  of  those  whose  personal  attention  is 
necessary  to  their  callings  in  life.     The  farmer,  the 
merchant,  the  lawyer,  the  physician,  and  the  trades- 
man cannot  spare  the  time,  even  if  they  could  afford 
the  expense ;  and  the  idle  may  not  furnish  the  very 
best  materials  for  representatives  to  the  church  legis- 
lature.    If,  however,  men  of  wealth  and  leisure  can  be 
everywhere  found,  as  willing  as  they  are  akle,  to  go  at 
their  own  expense,  it  would  become  a  question,  of  no 
rdinary  interest  to  the  Methodists,  whether  they  ought 
to  adopt  a  system  of  government  which  would  make 
rich  men  absolutely  necessary  to  them,  or  which  would 
exclude  from  their  councils  the  brethren  of  less  fortune, 


CHUKCH  GOVERNMENT.  131 

though,  possibly,  possessed  of  better  gifts  and  morej 
experience.  \ 

"  We  think  it  must  be  obvious,  that,  before  the  Me-  'j 
thodists  can  have  a  lay  representation,  they  must  pro-j 
vide  funds  to  meet,  at  least,  the  expenses  of  the  dele-f 
gates,  if  not  to  make  them  some  compensation  for  their\ 
loss  of  time.     To  raise  these  funds  in  some  districts  ; 
will  be  utterly  impossible,  for  they  are  not  able  to  pay  | 
their  preachers  the  small  stipends  to  which  they  are  j 
entitled.     It  is  well  known  that  in  many,  if  not  most  \ 
of  the  conferences,  such  is  the  amount  of  deficiencies 
in  the  circuits,  that,  after  all  the  collections  from  the 
other  circuits  and  stations  are  brought  into  conference, 
the  preachers  seldom  liave  been  able  to  divide  among  I 
those  who  are  deficient  more  than  fifty  cents  in  the] 
dollar.     We  are  at  a  loss  to  know  how  those  circuits  i 
which  cannot  pay  their  preachers  are  to  raise  the  money  [ 
to  pay  lay  delegates.     But  tliis  is  not  all.     The  remote  | 
districts,  many  of  which  are  among  those  that  are  least ; 
able  to  pay  their  delegates,  will  have  to  incur  much( 
greater  expense  than  those  which  are  located  nearer 
the  General  Conference,  as  their  delegates  will  have 
further  to  travel.     This  would  not  only  be  oppressive, 
but  unjust.     As  the  representation  is  intended  for  the 
common  benefit,  no  one  part  of  the  membership  ought 
to  pay  more  than  another.  , 

"  From  these  considerations,  it  will  appear  that  the 
representatives  must  be  paid  out  of  some  common  fund, 
to  be  provided  by  the  whole  church ;  and  further,  that 
this  fund,  as  it  is  intended  to  meet  expenses  that  must 
certainly  accrue,  cannot  be  looked  for  from  sources  that  \ 
are  uncertain,  and,  therefore,  must  not  depend  upon  the  { 
voluntary  contributions  of  the  members  of  the  church.  ^ 


182  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

(It  can,  then,  only  be  raised  by  direct  taxation  ;  and  to 
levy  this  tax  will  be  one  of  the  many  new  powers  which 
must  be  given  to  the  General  Conference,  when  con- 
stituted as  the  seceders  would  have  it.  To  levy  a  tax, 
without  having  the  power  to  enforce  the  collection  of 
it,  would  be  an  absurdity ;  and  I  can  see  but  one  means 
•of  enforcing  the  collection,  and  that  will  be,  to  turn 
those  out  of  the  church  who  do  not  comply  with  the 
requisition.  Here,  then,  will  be  a  new  condition  of 
membership ;  and  we  hope  there  are  few  of  us  who 
would  consent  to  hold  our  membership  upon  any  pecu- 
niary condition  whatever.     But,  if  we  do  consent  to 

I  this  tax,  how  shall  it  be  levied  ?  Will  it  be  by  an  equal 
assessment  on  property  ?  or  will  it  be  a  poll  tax  ?  The 
first  would  be  vexatious,  and  give  rise  to  endless  dis- 
putes ;  and  the  other  would  be  both  unjust  and  oj^press- 
ive.  In  short,  look  at  this  Utopian  scheme  on  what- 
ever side  you  will,  if  you  only  bring  it  near  enough  to 
see  it  in  its  details,  it  will  appear  equally  absurd  and 
.impracticable. 

"  It  may  be  alledged,  however,  that  if  each  electoral 
district  be  allowed  to  raise,  by  subscription,  the  amount 
necessary  to  pay  their  own  delegate,  those  who  do  not 
send  delegates  will  have  no  right  to  complain  if  others, 
more  liberal,  should  avail  themselves  of  the  privilege. 

'  We  reply,  that  this  would  be  true  in  reference  to  those 
who  had  the  means,  and  declined  to  avail  themselves 
I  of  the  advantages  accorded  to  them ;  but  will  not  apply 
to  those  who  cannot  send  delegates  for  want  of  the 
means.  These  would  have  a  right  to  complain ;  not, 
indeed,  because  others  enjoyed  a  blessing  in  which  they 
could  not  participate,  but  because  their  former  situation 
i  was  made  worse  by  the  advantages  accorded  to  their 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  133 

wealthier  brethren.     This  will  be  obvious,  from  the^ 
following  considerations :  The  regulations,  by  which  the  | 
whole  church  is  governed,  are  made  by  those  who  have 
no  local  or  fixed  residence ;  but  they  necessarily  acquire 
a  knowledge  of  the  local  circumstances,  and  particular 
necessities  of  our  membership,  in  the  different  sections 
of  the  United  States.     Now,  if  the  interests  of  the  laity  [ 
were  confided  to  a  partial  representation,  chiefly,  if  not  \ 
entirely,  composed  of  delegates  from  the  circuits  and  J 
stations  in  the  vicinity  of  the  General  Conference,  the  1 
situation  of  those  sections  which  could  not  be  repre-  f 
sented  by  their  own  delegates  would  be  very  materially  \ 
altered  for  the  worse.     They  will  then  be  legislated 
for,  not  only  by  those  who  are  in  no  way  responsible 
to  them,  but  by  those  who  do  not  even  know  them,  and, 
of  consequence,  are  totally  unacquamted  with  their 
sentiments  or  their  circumstances.     So  far,  then,  from 
enjoying  new  privileges  by  the  contemplated  changes 
in  our  ecclesiastical  polity,  they  would  be  robbed  of 
the  equal  advantages  which  they  now  enjoy.     It  is 
easy  to  foresee,  without  pretending  to  any  extraordi- 
nary sagacity,  that  such  a  state  of  things  would  neces- 
sarily bring  about  a  dismemberment  of  our  ecclesiasti- 
cal union.     The  more  remote  annual  conference  dis-/ 
tricts,  not  being  able  to  send  representatives  to  the  \ 
general  conferences,  where  the  other  districts  were 
represented,  would  withdraw  from  the  confederacy  and  : 
institute  a  legislature  of  their  own,  more  conveniently  ,• 
located." — Dr.  Bond. 

_6.  But  suppose  all  these  difficulties  surmounted^Jt 
would  still  be  impossible  fully  to  adopt  the  jolan.     Ac-  ? 
cording  to  the  republican  principle  that  representation  j 
should  be  apportioned  to  numbers,  the  change  would  ) 


134  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

■•  absolutely  be  impracticable  among  us  unless  the  min- 
istry should  be  virtually  excluded  from  the  represent- 
I  ative  body.     Our  travehng   ministers  are  now  four 
^thousand;   the  membership   1,068,000.     If,  then,  we 
{ should  have  but  one  representative  to  a  thousand,  it 
j  would  give  us  four  for  all  the  clergy ;  that  is,  one  for 
\  every  eight  conferences !  virtually  none  at  all ;  while, 
for  the  laity,  there  would  be  one  thousand  and  sixty- 
eight!  and  this,  too,  in  a  body  nine-tenths  of  whose 
business  relate  only  to  the  clergy.     And,  certainly,  the 
number  cannot  be  increased  to  accommodate  the  clergy, 
for,  even  at  the  above  reduced  rate,  the  body  would  be 
;  unmanageably  large ;   and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
,.  should  be  reduced  still  more,  to  render  it  more  man- 
\  ageable,  the  clerical  representation  must  be  entirely 
j  cut  off! 

7.  If,  however,  by  violating  a  fundamental  principle 
of  republican  representation,  we  should  allow  as  many 
clergymen  as  laymen  in  the  representative  body, — the 
plan  adopted  by  our  seceding  brethren, — while,  as  we 
have  already  shown,  tliere  is  nonnecessity  for  such  an 
arraiigemerit, itwoiild l)ej^ro^ictive  oj incalculable evih 
to  the  church.  Our  present  representation  is  one  for 
i  every  twenty-one  preachers,  and  affords  about  one 
hundred  and  ninety  members  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence. If  we  reduce  this  number  one-half,  to  make 
room  for  the  lay  delegation,  it  will  give  the  preachers 
one  representative  for  every  forty-two ;  and,  estimatmg 
two  preachers  to  a  circuit,  it  will  take  twenty-one  cir- 
cuits to  send  one  itinerant  delegate.  As  the  lay  repre 
sentation  is  to  be  equal,  it  will  take  the  same  numbei 
of  circuits  to  send  one  lay  delegate.  Now,  how  are 
these  lay  delegates  to  be  chosen?    No  candidate  can 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  136 

be  known  personally  to  one  in  several  hundreds  of  the  | 
Methodists  on  the  twenty-one  circuits  which  form  hisi 
electoral  district ;  and,  if  they  know  him  not,  how  will  J 
they  be  fit  to  judge  of  his  quahfications  ?  i 

"  To  obviate  this  difficulty  in  the  election  of  delegates! 
by  the  members  immediately,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
institute  an  electoral  college,  composed  of  electors  ^ 
chosen  in  each  circuit  separately,  who  shall  meet  and 
choose  a  representative  for  the  General  Conference. 
These  electors  can  only  be  chosen  by  the  members  in 
the  class-meetings,  for  it  will  not  be  possible  to  assem- 
ble them  together  at  one  place,  in  order  to  take  their 
votes.  It  will  be  a  consequence,  growing  out  of  this 
arrangement,  that  each  of  the  candidates  for  the  honor 
of  representing  us  in  the  General  Conference  will  have 
his  elector  in  every  circuit  composing  the  district,  who 
will  be  pledged  to  vote  for  said  candidate  in  the  event 
of  his  being  placed  in  the  electoral  college.  We  have 
now  the  preliminary  arrangements  for  the  combat,  and 
the  issue  will  be  easily  foreseen.  The  several  candi- 
dates for  the  electoral  college  must  of  course  visit  the 
different  class-meetings  in  the  circuit,  to  set  forth  the 
pretensions  and  superior  qualifications  of  the  person  i 
whom  he  has  been  led  to  prefer  as  a  representative  to 
the  church  legislature.  These  claims  may  at  first  be 
modestly  set  forth,  but  presently  opposition  will  enhst 
and  warm  his  feelings.  As  the  time  of  the  election 
draws  nearer,  and  the  contest  becomes  doubtful,  pride 
and  partisan  zeal  will  enter  the  Hsts.  The  disgrace 
and  mortification  of  defeat,  the  glory  and  triumph  of 
victory,  urge  on  the  combatants ;  and  the  '  on,  brethren, 
on,'  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Snethen,*  will  everywhere  be' 
*  See  Mutual  Rights,  vol.  lii,  p.  348. 


136  cnuRcn  government. 

;heai*d,  animating  tli3  competitors,  and  encouraging  the 
contest.  The  feelings  of  the  members  will  soon  catch 
the  kintUing  flame.  Personal  friendship  for  the  can- 
didates, or  the  interest  they  may  feel  for  the  measures 
they  severally  propose  to  carry  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence, cannot  fail  of  effect.  Parties  and  caucuses  will 
be  formed,  which  will  necessarily  alienate  theii*  affec- 
tions from  each  other.  Brotherly  love  no  longer  con- 
tinuing, strife  and  envy,  evil  speaking  and  slander,  will 
take  the  place  of  those  fruits  of  the  Spirit — peace,  long- 
suffering,  and  meekness,  and  of  that  humility  which 
has  so  long  taught  us  each  to  esteem  the  other  better 
than  himself.  From  such  scenes  the  more  pious,  hum- 
ble, and  retiring,  though  obviously  the  most  competent 
part  of  the  membership,  will  seek  to  hide  themselves, 
and  mourn  over  calamities  they  cannot  control ;  while 
the  froward  and  assuming,  the  vain  and  the  self-con- 
I  ceited,  will  be  brought  forward,  and  obtain,  by  their 
\  party  zeal  and  desire  of  distinction,  the  suffrages  of 
» their  brethren.  Beloved  reader,  brother  in  Christ,  I 
,-  am  no  prophet,  neither  the  son  of  a  prophet ;  but  I 
\  venture  to  predict,  without  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  that 
(this  is  but  a  very  faint  representation  of  the  scenes 
which  will  certainly  follow  the  changes  which  you  are 
urged  to  effect  in  the  government  of  the  Methodist 
Church.  Our  class-meetings,  heretofore  blessed  to  us 
as  a  peculiar  privilege,  where  we  have  been  accustom- 
ed to  speak  and  to  think  only  of  spiritual  things,  will 
then  become,  over  this  whole  continent,  so  many  arenas 
for  electioneeiTJig,  strife,  and  contention;  where  bro- 
ther will  seek  to  traduce  and  misrepresent  brother,  in 
order  to  lessen  his  influence  in  an  approaclung  elec- 
tion; and  where  feuds  and  personal  enmities  will  be 


CHUKCH  GOVERNMENT.  137 

engendered,  fearful  in  their  consequences,  and  inter-; 
minable  in  their  duration.  I  care  not  whether  elec- 
tions in  our  church  be  for  preachers,  class-leaders,  or 
delegates  to  the  General  Conference  or  the  annual 
conferences ;  only  make  them  of  sufficient  importance 
to  excite  competition,  and  awaken  that  desire  for  diS' 
tinction  wliich  finds  a  place  in  every  human  bosom 
until  it  is  cast  out  by  perfect  love,  and  the  same  de- 
structive consequences  will  inevitably  follow  so  long  as 
man  continues  what  he  is — a  weak  and  fallible  being." 
— Dr.  Bond. 

According  to  the  plan  actually  adopted  by  the  seced- 
ing Methodists,  these  dangerous  liabilities  are  increased 
four  or  jive  fold,  for  they  have  not  only  an  election 
once  in  four  years  for  the  General  Conference,  but 
every  yeai*  for  the  annual  conference,  besides  the  elec- 
tions of  appointing-committees,  class-leaders,  &c.,  keep- 
ing up  a  constant  agitation  in  all  departments  of  the 
church.  Well  may  they,  as  Mr.  Shinn  declares,  have 
"difficulty  in  keejping  their  denomination  from  being 
scattered  to  the  winds  by  a  loose  and  deplorable  spirit 
of  anarchy !"  And  if  this  arrangement  could  succeed 
tolerably  with  their  small  numbers,  yet  how  would  it 
operate  among  our  vast  membership  ? 

Thus,  then^it  is  manifest  that  this  demand  for  re- 
publican  forms  in  our  economy  is  not  justified  by  any 
analogy  between  the  church  and  the  state  in  their 
authority,  their  origin,  or  design — nor  by  the  example 
of  most  volaiitary  organizations  of  a  secular  cherracter 
in  the  land — nor  }>j  the  example  of  other  churches — 
nor  Ijj  any  important  icant  or  liahility  in  our  present 
system; — that  it  has  insurmountable  'pecuniary  diffi- 
culties — ^that,  from  the  proportion  of  the  clergy  to  the 


138  cnuRcn  government. 

hiity,  it  would  be  ahsolutehj  impracticable  on  the  true 
repul>lic;ui  principle— and  that,  even  oij&n  aristocratic 
plan  of  dis|)n>portioi)ate  representation,  it  would  be 
attended  \\\{\i  j^roccsses,  a(/itations,  and  s/!r//<?5,  Tn  ^r 
large  body,  which  would  be  utterly  incom2)atible  with 
the  pacific  character  of  religious  institutions,  and  would 
probably  prove  destructive  to  our  cause. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ITINERANCY. 

Recommended  by  Scriptural  example — Comports  with  the  design 
of  the  Christian  ministry — Its  influence  and  results. 

Wb  now  proceed  to  examine  our  economy  «»-4t-Tsr 
and  to  show  that  it  is  actually  under  a  sufficient  popu- 
lar control  in  another  form.  In  our  brief  limits  we 
-camiot,  of  course,  notice  all  those  features -of  it  which 
are  condemned  by  seee^ew.  We  shall,  therefore,  in- 
the  following  observations,  keep  in  view  the  chief  one, 
namely,  its  episcopacy;  remarkiiiir  1  k- re,  however, //urf 
tfi€  design  and  checks  which  justify  and  restrain  this 
apply  to  the  others  aho.  If.  they.xu-e  found  sufficient 
iu_4his  instance,  they,  of  course,  will  -aot  be-deemed- 
inadequate  in  subordinate  casea. 

Wi444  -t^Hs-^weliminary^-pemaricy-thFee  -things -iire-4« 
\\Q  rnn^iilered  in  forming  ft- j«6t-idea-ef-+ht;  Methodist- 
■gconomyt  4k&t,.iL3xZNy-dj^  r^et!tm43 its  thitf  power  ; 
ihicilrMs-tippropricUc-Mhache  or  halcmve^. 

First.  Its  chief  design  (subordinate  to  its  spiritual 
cnds)^  is  the  maintenance  of  itinerancy  in  the  ministry,. 
This  is  its  stamped  feature.    -"Nothing  pertaining  to  it 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  139 

4a..ixw»e~-prize^  bj  Methodi«tsr.  Even  in  tho  dense- 
pQpulaiioiu©£.-E»glft»d3--a«K>ng  tlie  old  and  weU-e&ta- 
-blished  Boci^ies-^  Lond^H;t~aBd  I^iveypool,  the  preach- 
ers are  required  to  exeha*ige-every  sabbathy  and-to 
remove-e-very  two- or~,three~y-ears.  Seme- of -the^  rea- 
■ewts4ep-this-arrangement  can  only  be  referred  to  here. 
1.  It  is  recommended  by  Scriptural  example.  The 
fathers  of  our  church  speak  thus  on  this  point :  "  The 
following  portions  of  the  word  of  God  are  pointed  in 
support  of  the  itinerant  plan  for  the  propagation  of  the 
gospel ;  which  plan  renders  most  of  the  regulations  of 
the  General  and  Annual  Conferences  essential  to  the 
existence  of  our  united  society :  Matt,  x,  5-11,  '  These 
twelve  [apostles]  Jesus  sent  forth,  and  commanded 
them,  saying.  Go  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel.  And  as  ye  go,  preach,  saying.  The  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  at  hand.  And  into  whatsoever  city  or 
town  ye  shall  enter,  inquire,'  &c.  Matt,  xxii,  8-10, 
*  Then  saith  he  to  his  servants,  The  wedding  is  ready, 
but  they  which  were  bidden  were  not  worthy.  Go  ye, 
therefore,  into  the  highways,  and  as  many  as  ye  shall 
find,  bid  to  the  marriage.  So  those  servants  went  out 
into  the  highways,'  &c.  Matt,  xxviii,  19,  '  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations  ;'  be  as  extensively  use- 
ful as  possible.  Mark  vi,  7-12,  *  And  he  calleth  unto 
him  the  twelve,  and  began  to  send  them  forth  by  two 
and  two,  .  .  .  and  commanded  them  that  they  should 
take  nothing  for  their  journey,  save  a  staff  only.  .  .  . 
And  he  said  unto  them,  Iqi  what  place  soever  ye  enter 
into  a  house,  there  abide,  till  ye  depart  from  that 
place.  .  .  .  And  they  went  out,  and  preached  that  men 
should  repent.'  Luke  x,  1-9,  *  After  these  things,  the 
Lord  appointed  other  seventy  also,  and  sent  them  two 


140  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

and  two  before  his  face  into  every  city  and  place,  whither 
he  himself  woukl  come.  .  .  .  Aiid  into  whatsoever  house 
ye  enter,'  says  our  Lord  to  them,  '  first  say,  Peace  be 
to  this  house.  .  .  .  And  into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter 
and  they  receive  you,  say  unto  them,  The  kingdom  of 
God  is  come  nigh  unto  you.'  Luke  xiv,  23,  '  And  the 
Lord  said  unto  the  servant.  Go  out  into  the  hiyhvays 
and  hedges,  and  compel  them  to  come  in,  that  my  house 
may  be  filled.'  Acts  viii,  4,  '  They  that  were  scattered 
abroad  went  everywhere  j^reaching  the  word.'  Acts 
viii,  40,  *  Philip  .  .  .  preached  in  all  the  cities,  till  he 
came  to  Coesarea.'  Acts  xvi,  3G,  '  Paul  said  unto  Bar- 
nabas, Let  us  go  again  and  visit  our  brethi-en  iri  every 
city  where  we  have  preached  the  word  of  the  Lord,' 
&c.  .  .  .  Timothy  and  Titus  were  traveling  bishops.  In 
shoi-t,  every  candid  person,  who  is  thoroughly  acquaint- 
ed with  the  New  Testament,  must  allow,  that  whatever 
excellences  other  plans  may  have,  this  is  the  primitive 
and  apostolic  plan.  But  we  would  by  no  means  speak 
with  disrespect  of  the  faithful  located  ministers  of  any 
church.  We  doubt  not  but,  from  the  nature  and  cir- 
cumstances of  things,  there  must  have  been  many  lo- 
cated ministers  in  the  primitive  churches ;  and  we  must 
acknowledge,  with  gratitude  to  God,  that  the  located 
brethren  in  our  church  are  truly  useful,  and  of  consi- 
derable consequence,  in  their  respective  stations.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  are  so  conscious  of  the  vast  im- 
jiortance  of  the  traveling  plan,  that  we  are  determined, 
through  the  grace  of  God,  to  support  it  to  the  utmost 
of  our  power ;  nor  will  any  plea  which  can  possibly  be 
urged,  however  plausible  it  may  appear,  or  under  what- 
ever name  proposed,  induce  us  to  make  the  least  sacri- 
fice in  this  respect,  or,  by  the  introduction  of  any  nov- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  141 

elty,  to  run  the  least  hazard  of  wounding  that  plan 
which  God  has  so  wonderfully  owned,  and  which  is  so 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  apostolic  and  primitive 
practice." — Notes  to  Discipline  ojf  1796. 

2.  It  comports  with  the  desiffli  of  the  Christian  min- 
istry, Christianity  was  not  designed  to  be,  like  Juda- 
ism, a  local  system,  but  aggressive,  until  it  should  be 
universal.  The  missionary  idea  should  not  be  inci- 
dental, as  it  is  in  the  systems  of  most  modern  churches 
— dependent  on  casual  impulses  and  occasional  liberal- 
ity, but  should  be  incorporated  into  the  very  constitu- 
tion of  the  ministry — its  ostensible  characteristic.  Such 
was  the  meaning  of  the  divine  commission,  "  Go  ye  into 
all  the  world."  Such  was  the  character  of  the  primi- 
tive ministry  during  its  itinerant  operations.  The  truth 
broke  forth  on  the  right  and  on  the  left,  till  it  over- 
spread and  outspread  the  Roman  empire.  When  it 
pleased  God  to  raise  up  Wesley,  only  about  two  or 
three  of  even  incidental  forms  of  aggressive  action  were 
to  be  found  in  the  Protestant  churches.  He  was  provi- 
dentially led  to  introduce  an  arrangement  which  should 
put  Protestant  lands  themselves  under  a  great  system 
of  missionary  operations — itinerant  circles  of  ministe- 
rial labor,  which,  while  they  conveyed  the  gospel  to  the 
millions  of  domestic  heathen  who  had  scarcely  been 
affected  by  the  existing  localized  system,  should  also 
send  forth  tangents  of  evangelic  light  to  the  miUions 
abroad. 

3.  It  has  an  inestimable  influence  on  the  ministry 
itself.  It  is  an  heroic  training  which  the  greatest  mili- 
tary captains  might  applaud.  We  need  not  enlarge 
here.  Any  reflecting  mind  must  perceive  that  such  a 
system  as  the  Methodist  itinerancy  is  remarkably  adapt- 


142  CnURCII  GOVERNMENT. 

ed,  as  a  vehicle,  for  the  enthusiastic  energy  wliich  cha- 
racterizes fervid  and  hig;hly  devotional  minds,  and  is 
equally  fitted  to  keep  alive  that  energy.  It  is  also  well 
suited  to  preclude  men  of  false  character,  for  it  is  al- 
most entirely  a  system  of  sacrifice.     By  its  access  to 

all  classes,  it  affords  an  invaluable  knowlcd'j<'  ot  Imman 
■    -    ? .   .       ^ 

nature;  by  its  constant  exercise,  it  produces  atldetic 
frames  and  energetic  temperaments;  by  its  incessant 
labors,  an  exclusive  devotedness  to  one  work;  by  its 
frequentdianges,  a  pilgrim  spirit.  "Most  of  its  labor- 
ers may  say,  Avith  tlieir  grcut  poet, — 

"  No  foot  of  land  do  I  possess, 
No  cottage  in  this  wilderness, 

A  poor  wayfaring  man  ; 
I  lodge  awhile  in  tents  below, 
And  gladly  wander  to  and  fro, 

Till  I  my  Canaan  gain." 

This  effect  the  world  witnesses.  Do  we  assert  too 
<much  when  we  say,  that  for  one  hundred  years  the 
/Methodist  ministry,  though  mostly  uneducated,  have 
Uranscended  in  labors,  in  results,  and  in  conservative 
)  adherence  to  their  great  principles,  any  other  body  of 
)^men  engaged  in  moral  labor  on  the  earth  ? 

4.  It  distributes  in  turn,  to  most  of  the  societies,  the 
various  talents  of  the  ministry.  This  is  an  important 
consideration  to  those  who  have  witnessed  its  opera- 
tion, but  it  can  only  be  alluded  to  here.  Many  men 
I  of  fervid  spirit  and  deepj^lety  have  little  talent  for  dis- 
i  ciplining  the  church.  Their  discourses  are  chiefly 
hortative ;  they  are  instrumental  in  great  revivals  and 
additions  to  the  membership.  It  is  obvious  that  such 
talents  need  a  rapid  distribution.     The  soul  must  not 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  143 

only  be  converted,  but  trained  in  piety.     By  an  itin-'i 
erant  system  such  men  are  changed  from  position  to 
position,  arousing   dull   churches,  breaking  up   new 
ground,  invading  and  reclaiming  ungodly  neighbor-, 
hoods.     By  the  same  system  prudent  men,  with  talents  ii 
for  instracting  and  edifying  the  converted  masses,  fol-  ; 
low  the  former,  gathering  up  and  securing  the  fruits 
of  their  labors.     Some  pastors  are  addicted  chiefly  to 
experiniental  and  practical  preaching,  others  to  the  J 
illustration  and  defense  of  doctrinal  truth.     Some  are 
most  effectual  in  the  social  services  and  in  pastoral 
l^ors,  others  in  the  nunistrations  of  the  pulpit.     Some 
have  ability  only  for  spiritual  labors,  others  are  skill-  ; 
ful  in  managing  and  invigorating  the  fiscalresources 
of  the  church,  in  erecting  new  chapels,  and  promoting 
the  benevolent  .enterprises  of  the  times.     Now  it  is 
clear  that  the  frequent  distribution  of  these  various  '■ 
gifts,  wisely  adapted  to  the  local  wants  of  the  various  \ 
churches,  must  be  an  extraordinary  cause  of  energy  ' 
and  success,  and  such  we  shall  by  and  by  see  has  actu-  J 
ally  been  its  effect. 

5.  It  produces  a  sentiment  of  unity  throughout  the 
church.  In  no  sect  is  there  more  co-operation — more 
of  the  esprit  ^u  corps.  Scarcely  is  a  church  erected, 
or  any  important  measure  attempted,  that  does  not  en- 
list the  common  sympathy  of  the  body ;  and  this  results, 
to  a  great  extent,  from  our  having  pastors  who,  by  fre- 
quent changes,  become  individually  common  to  us  all. 

6.  By  it  one  preacher  can  supply  a  plurality  of 
societies.  This  is  one  of  its  capital  advantages.  In  a 
sparse  population,  a  single  circuit  sometimes  takes  in 
ten  or  twenty  appointments.  Methodism  has  thus  sup- 
plied our  frontier  for  fifty  years  with  the  gospel.     The 


144  CHUUCH  GOVERNMENT. 

usual  stationary  ministries  wait  for  the  call  of  the  peo- 
plcf  except  in  their  colhiteral  missionary  labors:  the 
Methodist  ministry  goes  forth  to  call  the  people.  This 
is  one  of  its  strongest  points  of  contrast.  It  is  the  miS' 
X  sionary  church.  Its  adaptation  in  this  respect  to  our 
own  country  is  worthy  of  remark.  While  the  great 
moral  revolution  of  Methodism  was  going  on  across 
the  Atlantic,  the  greatest  political  revolution  of  modem 
times  was  in  process  on  our  own  continent ;  and  when 
we  contemplate  the  new  adaptations  of  religious  action 
which  were  evolved  by  the  former,  can  we  resist  the 
conviction  that  there  was  a  providential  relation  be- 
tween the  two  events  ? — that  they  were  not  only  coin- 
cident in  time,  but  also  in  purpose?  Wliile  Wesley 
and  his  co-laborers  were  reviving  Christianity  there, 
Washington  and  his  compatriots  were  reviving  Hberty 
here.  It  was  the  American  Revolution  that  led  to  the 
development  of  the  resources  of  this  vast  country,  and 
rendered  it  the  assembling-place  of  all  kindreds,  tongues, 
and  people ;  and  Methodism  commenced  its  operation 
sufficiently  early  to  be  in  mature  vigor  by  the  time  that 
the  great  movement  of  the  civilized  world  toward  the 
west  began.  It  seems  to  have  been  divinely  adapted 
to  this  emergency  of  our  country.  If  we  may  judge 
from  the  result,  it  was  raised  up  by  Providence  more 
in  reference  to  the  new  than  to  the  old  world.  Its 
peculiar  measures  were  strikingly  suited  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  country,  while  those  of  every  other  con- 
temporary sect  were  as  strikingly  unadapted  to  them. 
The  then  usual  process  of  a  long  preparatory  training 
for  the  ministry  could  not  at  all  consist  with  the  rap- 
idly increasing  wants  of  the  country.  The  usual  plan 
of  local  labor,  limited  to  a  single  congregation  or  to  a 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  145 

parish,  was  inadequate  to  the  wants  of  Great  Britain 
at  that  time ;  but  much  more  so  to  those  of  the  new 
continent.  That  extraordinary  conception  of  Weslej, 
an  itinerant  ministry,  met,  in  the  only  manner  possible, 
the  circumstances  of  the  latter.  No  one  can  estimate' 
what  would  have  been  the  probable  result  of  that  rapid 
advancement  which  the  population  of  the  United  States 
was  making  beyond  the  customary  provisions  for  reli- 
gious instruction,  had  not  this  novel  plan  met  the  emer- 
gency. Much  of  what  was  then  our  frontier,  but  since 
has  become  the  most  important  states  of  the  Union, 
would  have  passed  through  the  forming  period  of  its 
character  destitute,  to  a  great  extent,  of  the  influence 
of  Christian  institutions ;  but  the  Methodist  itinerancy 
has  borne  the  cross,  not  only  in  the  midst,  but  in  the 
van,  of  the  hosts  of  emigration.  Methodist  itinerants^ 
are  found,  with  their  horses  and  saddlebags,  threading 
the  trail  of  the  savage,  cheering  and  blessing  with  their 
visits  the  loneliest  cottage  on  the  furthest  frontier. 
They  have  gone  to  the  aboriginal  tribes,  and  have 
gathered  into  the  pale  of  the  church  more  of  the  chil- 
dren of  the  forest  than  any  other  sect.  They  have 
scaled  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  are  building  up 
Christianity  and  civilization  on  the  shores  of  the  Co- 
lumbia. They  are  hastening  down  toward  the  capital 
of  Montezuma ;  while,  through  the  length  and  breadth 
of  our  older  states,  they  have  been  spreading  a  health- 
ful influence  which  has  affected  all  classes,  so  that  their 
cause  includes  not  only  a  larger  aggregate  population 
than  any  other  sect,  but  especially  a  larger  proportion 
of  those  classes  whose  moral  elevation  is  the  most  dif- 
ficult and  the  most  important — the  savage,  the  slave, 
the  free  colored  man,  and  the  lower  classes  generally. 
7 


146  cnuRcn  government. 

Dr.  Bainl,  (a  Prcsbytcrijin,)  in  his  late  invaluable 
work  on  Keligion  in  America,  speaking  of  dillicult  por- 
tions of  our  moral  field,  exelaims :  "  Blessed  be  God, 
(there  is  a  way,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter,  by  which 
)  some  of  the  evils  here  spoken  of  ma^  be  mitigated ; 
I  and  that  is,  by  the  system  of  itinerant  preaching;  cm- 
I  ployed  in  the  United  States  so  extensively  and  usefully 
[by  the  Methodists.       And  again  he  says :  "  It  has  been 
said,  with  truth,  that  the  Methodist  Church  is,  in  its 
^  very  structure,  erapliatically  missionary ;  and  it  is  an 
inexpressible  blessing  that  it  is  so,  as  the  United  States 
strikmgly  prove.     The  whole  country  is  embraced  by 
one  General  Conference ;  it  is  again  subdivided  into 
tliirty-two  annual  conferences,  each  including  a  large 
extent  of  country,  and  divided  into  districts.     Each 
district  comprehends  several  circuits,  and  within  each 
circuit  there  are  from  five  or  six  to  above  twenty 
preaching  places.     Ordinarily,  as  often  as  once  in  a 
fortnight,  a  circuit  preacher  conducts  a  regular  service 
at  each  of  these  preaching  places,  whether  it  be  a 
church,   school-room,    or   a   dwelling-house.     In   the 
largest  towns  and  villages  such  services  are  held  on 
the  sabbath,  and  on  a  week-day  or  evening  in  other 
places ;  and  thus  the  gospel  is  carried  into  thousands 
of  remote  spots  in  which  it  never  would  be  preached 
upon  the  plan  of  having  a  permanent  clergy,  planted 
in  particular  districts  and  parishes.     It  was  a  remark, 
I  believe,  of  the  celebrated  Dr.  Witherspoon,  that  ^he 
needed  no  other  evidence  that  the  Rev.  John  Wesley 


was  a  great  man,  than  what  the  system  of  itinerating 
preacliing  presented  to  his  mind,  and  of  which  that 


t  wonderful  man  was  the  author.*     The  observation  was 
a  just  one.     It  is  a  system  of  vast  importance  in  every 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  147 

point  of  view,  capable  of  being  made  to  send  its  rami- 
fications into  almost  every  corner  of  the  country,  and 
to  carry  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  into  the  most  re- 
mote and  secluded  settlements,  as  well  as  to  the  more 
accessibly  and  populous  towns  and  neighborhoods." 

7.  It  provides  for  poor  churches.  At  least  one-third 
of  our  societies  do  not  afford  a  competent  support ;  yet 
we  supply  them  with  preachers,  and  by  annual  or  bien- 
nial changes  these  preachers  are  replaced,  and  the  dis- 
advantages of  such  places  relieved,  by  being  shared 
among  them.  By  any  other  plan,  such  societies  must 
be  abandoned.  Do  away  the  itinerancy,  and  Method- 
ism would  at  once  contract^  hy  at  least  one-third,  its 
sphere  of  labor,  and  lose  nine-tenths  of  its  moral  power. 
This,  under  God,  is  the  great  secret  of  its  triumphs. 
Pages  could  be  written  on  the  subject. 

8.  This  system  has  Ijcen  found  by  experiment  not 
onIy^2jracticable,  and,  in  coinK.'ctioii  with  our  classes 
and  other  means,  perlectiy  a<la|)t(  d  to  the  pastoral  and 
other  wants  of  our  densest  eoiniuiiiiiiics  as  well  as  the 
wilderness,  but  also  the  nujst  siuxessiUl  one  yet  adopt- 
ed  by  Protestant  Christendom.  We  would  not  speak 
of  it  with  sectarian  gratulation,  but  in  proof  of  our  po- 
sition, and  in  humble  gratitude  to  the  great  Head  of 
the  church,  who,  in  his  mercy,  has  made  us  "  a  pecu- 
liar people,"  "which  in  time  past  were  not  a  people, 
but  are  now  the  people  of  God." 

Methodism  is  but  little  more  than  a  century  old  in 
England.  Other  dissenting  bodies  were  in  operation 
centuries  before  it,  yet  it  has  outstripped  every  one  of 
them  in  the  number  of  its  societies  and  its  pecuniary 
efforts  for  the  salvation  of  the  heathen.  The  substance 
of  a  report,  showing  the  dissenting  force  arrayed  against 


148  cnuRcn  government. 

Puseyism,  has  been  republished  in  the  American  reli- 
gious papers.  (See  Christian  Intelligencer,  February, 
1844.)  It  gives  to  the  Methodists  in  England  and 
Ireland  a  number  of  societies  equal  to  al)out  half  of  all 
the  dissenting  societies  in  England  and  Waifs.  They 
are  stated  at  four  thousand  in  England  and  Ireland ; 
the  Baptists  in  England  and  Ireland  at  one  thousand 
six  hundred  and  seventy-six  ;  Independents  in  England 
and  Wales,  two  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixteen 
churches  ;  Presbyterians,  (Orthodox,)  in  England,  one 
hundred  and  twenty  churches,  &c.  The  dissenting 
aggregate  is  stated  at  about  eight  thousand.  This  re- 
port is  irregular,  in  excepting  from  its  statistics  of  the 
Methodists  their  numerous  societies  in  Wales  and  Scot- 
land; while  it  also  excepts  the  Baptists  in  the  same 
places,  and  the  Independents  and  Presbyterians  in  Ire- 
land. We  give  it  as  it  is.  It  is  sufficient  to  show  the 
remarkable  superiority  of  the  Methodist  economy. 

Only  about  sixty  years  have  yet  passed  since  the 
organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  and  but  about  seventy-five  since  the 
arrival  of  the  first  Methodist  itinerant.  Other  evan- 
gelical bodies  had  been  operating  here  more  than  a 
century,  and  yet  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  ex- 
clusive of  several  other  classes  of  Methodists,  exceeds 
by  nearly  one-half  any  other  Protestant  sect  of  the 
country.  The  Baptists  are  the  next  in  numbers — the 
Baptist  Register  states  their  present  communicants  at 
032,200.  The  last  Methodist  Minutes  (1844)  report 
our  numbers  at  1,0G8,525  members,  4,000  preachers, 
and  7,700  local  preachers.  As  an  evidence  of  the 
missionary  character  of  our  system,  it  ought  to  be  stated 
that  this  estimate  includes  3,379  Indians  and  128,410 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  149 

colored  people,  and  that  about  ^0,000  of  the  latter  are 
in  our  missions  to  the  slaves.  Its  success  still  advances. 
The  increase  last  year  alone  was  154,000,  (and  of  this 
increase  eight  hundred  were  Indians,  and  twenty  thou- 
sand colored  people,)  more  than  twice  as  large  as  the 
whole  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States ;  a  sister  church,  which  has  our  doctrines  and 
episcopacy  without  our  itinerancy.* 

Let  us  take  a  local  example  of  its  success,  and  let 
it  be  selected  from  its  most  difficult  field,  New-Eng- 
land, where  it  has  had  a  perpetual  conflict  with  the 
prevalent  theology  and  views  of  ecclesiastical  govern 
ment.  A  series  of  careful  statistical  articles  have  been 
published,  comparing  the  per  centage  of  our  increase 
with  that  of  the  whole  population  of  New-England. 
The  population  of 

New-England  increased,  from  1800  to  1810,  19|^  per  cent. 

Methodism              "                 "                 "      92  " 

New-England  increased,  from  1810  to  1820,  12^  " 
Methodism              "                 "                 "      58 

New-England  increased,  from  1820  to  1830,  17^1  « 

Methodism              "                 "                 "      98^  " 

New-England  increased,  from  1830  to  1840,  14  « 
Methodism              "                 "                 "      85 

*  Dr.  Dixon,  late  president  of  the  Wesleyan  Conference,  Eng- 
land, says :  "  Taking  into  account  the  present  numbers  and  po- 
sition of  the  American  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  the  wide 
area  of  the  United  States  ;  the  rapidly  increasing  population  of 
the  country ;  the  adaptation  of  their  system  to  meet  the  wants 
of  a  scattered  and  new  population  ;  and,  above  all,  the  complete- 
ness of  their  church  order,  which  is  evidently  looked  upon  with 
affectionate  and  loyal  veneration  on  the  part  of  the  people,  we 
are  furnished  with  moral  data  for  the  conclusion,  that  the  Ameri- 
can Methodist  Church  must,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  be- 
come one  of  the  greatest,  if  not  the  very  greatest,  Protestant 
body  in  the  world." 


150  cnuRcn  government. 

The  per  ccntage  of  our  increase,  it  will  be  seen,  is 
far  in  advance  of  that  of  the  general  population.  If 
we  compare  our  numbers  with  the  whole  population, 
we  discover  a  rapidly  increasing  ratio.  Thus,  begin- 
ning ten  years  after  our  origin,  in 

1800  there  was  one  Methodist  in  every  211  of  the  whole  population. 
1810  "  "  131  " 

1820  "  "  94  " 

1830  "  "  56  " 

1840  "  "  34  " 

These  ratios  we  obtain  without  including  the  thousands 
of  New-England  Methodists  comprehended  in  the 
New- York  and  Troy  Conferences.  We  have  esti- 
mated the  latter,  for  1840,  at  twenty-two  thousand, 
and  we  are  certain  that  this  estimate  is  short  of  the 
truth.  Including  these,  our  ratio,  for  1840,  will  be 
one  in  twenty-five.  Thus,  in  forty  years,  our  ratio  to 
the  whole  population  of  New-England  has  advanced 
from  one  in  two  hundred  and  eleven  to  one  in  twenty- 
five,  exhibiting  a  rapid  gain  on  the  general  population. 

The  Methodist  membership  in  Neio-England  has  more 
than  douhled  every  twelve  years  since  1796. 

Compare  now  these  local  estimates  with  the  num- 
bers of  other  sects.  Our  Congregational  brethren  have 
been  in  the  field  more  than  two  hundred  years,  four 
times  as  long  as  ourselves.  They  possessed  it  wholly 
a  large  portion  of  the  time.  Besides  the  advantage  of 
pre-possessing  the  ground,  they  have  had  numerous 
auxiliary  means  (peculiar  to  themselves)  of  not  only 
retaining  their  original  strength,  but  of  extending  it 
with  the  increase  of  population.  From  the  minutes 
of  their  general  associations  for  the  different  New- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 


151 


England  states,  (mostly  of  1841,  a  year  later  than  our 
own  statistics,  as  given  above,)  we  compile  the  follow- 
ing estimates  of  communicants  : — 


Connecticut      .     . 

.     35,688 

Maine 

Massachusetts 

.     57,563 

Vermont 

New-Hampshire    . 

.     17,581 

Rhode  Island  .     . 

.       2,577 

T 

17,338 
22,666 

153,413 


The  total  of  Methodist  members  which  we  have 
given  New-England,  for  1840,  is  eighty-seven  thou- 
sand. Compared  with  the  aggregate  returns  of  the 
Congregationalists,  it  gives  us  considerably  more  than 
one-half  their  number,  enrolled  in  less  than  one-fifth 
their  time.  In  some  of  the  New-England  states  our 
aggregate  exceeds  theirs.  We  have  no  means  of  as- 
certaining the  per  centage  of  their  increase,  but  the 
above  statements  show  that  it  must  be  considerablv 
short  of  our  own. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  are  a  numerous  and  successful 
denomination  in  New-England.  Their  first  church 
was  established  by  Roger  Williams  in  1639,  about  one 
hundi'ed  and  fifty  yeai's  before  Jesse  Lee's  visit  to 
New-England.  By  the  time  of  his  visit  they  were 
twenty  thousand  strong.  The  Baptist  Memorial  extra, 
(p.  22,)  for  1842,  gives  the  following  returns  from  each 
of  the  New-England  states  for  1840 : — 


Maine 20,490 

Vermont      ....  11,101 

Connecticut     .     .     .  11,725 

New-Hampshire   .     .  9,557 


Massachusetts 
Rhode  Island 

Total 


26,311 
5,962 

85,146 


Our  membership  for  1840  being  eighty-seven  thou- 
sand, gives  us  nearly  two  thousand  majority  over  the 


152  CUURCU   GOVERNMENT. 

Baptists,  though  "vvc  have  been  in  the  field  but  one- 
fourtli  of  their  time. 

The  above  two  denominations  are  leading  ones  in 
New-England.  They  are  far  in  advance  of  any  others 
with  which  we  might  institute  further  comparisons,  and 
are  therefore  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

The  foregoing  calculations  aflford  the  following  re- 
sult:—  That  the  Methodist  Church  is  second  in  New- 
JEngland  in  numbers,  and  jirst  in  progress. 

There  is  an  apparent  invidiousness  in  such  compari- 
sons, but  we  have  made  them  with  no  such  feeling. 
They  are  presented  as  matters  of  fact,  illustrative  of 
our  actual  progress.  "While  the  rapidity  of  our  ad- 
vancement is  an  occasion  of  undisguised  congratula- 
tion and  gratitude,  we  trust  we  should  rejoice  were 
that  of  our  sister  churches  a  hundred-fold  greater  than 
it  is. 

We  have  said  that  our  itinerant  aiTangement,  though 
itself  a  system  of  domestic  missionary  circles,  sends 
forth  tangents  of  evangelic  influence  to  the  foreign 
world.  The  Wesley  an  Methodists  are  unsurpassed  in 
their  zeal  for  foreign  missions.  According  to  a  table 
in  the  London  Missionary  Register  for  1842,  their  an- 
nual missionary  contributions  are  greater  than  those 
of  any  other  benevolent  society  whatever  in  Protestant 
Christendom,  except  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society  and  the  English  Church  Missionary  Society. 
Besides  their  centenary  contribution  of  a  million  dol- 
lars, they  have  recently  raised  above  8500,000  yearly 
for  missions.  Their  missionary  communicants  are  more 
numerous  than  the  missioiiary  communicants  of  all  the 
other  European  Protestant  churches  put  together.* 

*  Besides  these  and  other  numerous  benevolent  efforts,  the 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  153 

The  Methodist  Missionary  Society  in  the  United 
States  extends  its  labors  to  Africa,  South  America, 
Oregon,  our  frontier  Indians,  our  slaves,  and  other 
domestic  fields.  It  is  not  yet  twenty-five  years  gld, 
yet  it  now  includes,  and  supplies  with  the  bread  of  life, 
a  noble  army  of  nearly  forty  thousand  communicants. 
Among  these  are  more  than  four  thousand  Indians, 
and  nearly  fifteen  thousand  colored  people.  It  sustains 
a  band  of  missionary  laborers  more  than  tlu'ee  hundred 
strong.  We  assert  that,  all  things  considered,  these 
results  are  not  exceeded  in  the  history  of  modern  mis- 
sions. K  we  exclude  the  thousands  of  white  commu- 
nicants in  the  Methodist  missions  in  this  country, 
(twenty  thousand,)  and  in  the  Wesleyan  missions  in 
France,  the  British  provinces,  &c.,  the  remaining  com- 
municants of  the  united  Metliodist  missions  are  con- 
siderahly  more  than  all  the  missionary  converts  of  all 
the  rest  of  Protestant  Christendom  put  together  /* 

These  are  facts,  and  they  speak  with  a  voice  that 
cannot  be  misunderstood.  Here  is  a  sect  which,  with 
little  pretension  to  adventitious  influence,  and  through 
much  obloquy  and  poverty,  has  in  about  a  century 
equaled,  in  England,  about  one-half  of  most  the  dis- 
senting bodies  combined,  and  in  this  country  is  nearly 
twice  as  large  as  any  other  sect  of  the  land,  though 

Wesleyans  have,  before  their  recent  extraordinary  efforts  for  edu- 
cation, sustained  in  England  and  Wales  more  than  two  hundred 
and  seventy  day  schools,  including  more  than  twenty  thousand 
children,  and  three  thousand  six  hundred  sabbath  schools.  They 
teach  in  these  schools  nearly  forty  thousand  scholars,  at  an  annual 
expense  of  $100,000. 

*  About  one-third  more.     See  the  Foreign  Missionary  Chroni- 
cle for  1843,  Methodist  Missionary  Report  for  1843,  and  Sunday- 
School  Messenger,  February  16,  1843. 
7* 


154  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

many  had  buried  generations  of  communicants  before 
it  had  one,  and  lliis  same  sect  exceeds  in  its  missionary 
converts  those  of  all  the  rest  of  Protestant  Christen- 
dom. To  what  is  this  extraordinary  success  attributa- 
ble? Assuredly  there  is  some  most  potent  cause  for 
it.  It  would  be  uncharitable  to  ascribe  it  to  our  doc- 
trines alone,  for  the  fundamental  ones  are  common  to 
all  evangelical  churches.  Is  it  ascribed  to  our  zeal? 
But  that  zeal,  through  the  effect  of  the  divuie  Spirit,  is 
produced  by  means.  And  what  arc  our  peculiar  means  ? 
"Wliat  but  our  ministerial  arrangement,  our  itinerancy, 
infusing  missionary  energy  into  all  its  auxiliary  provi- 
sions ?  This  is  the  mainmast  of  our  bark — the  engine 
of  our  train.  Who,  then,  shall  presume  to  propose  in- 
novations that  may  affect  unfavorably  this  stupendous 
instrument?  Are  we  not  right  in  scrupling  to  touch 
it  rudely,  lest,  like  him  who  touched  the  ark,  the  sym- 
bol of  Israel's  strength,  we  fall  and  perish  as  a  denomi- 
nation ?  If  there  is  any  feature  of  their  cause  to  which 
Methodists  should  adhere  immovably,  it  is  their  glo- 
rious itinerancy.  Who  can  recount  what  it  has  accom- 
plished, under  the  blessing  of  God,  for  this  land? 
Wliat  would  Methodism  be  without  it  in  ten  or  twenty 
years?  It  is,  indeed,  a  system  of  sacrifice,  but  the 
sacrifice  is  mutual  between  the  ministry  and  the  peo- 
ple, and  infinitely  greater  with  the  former  than  the 
latter;  and  all  its  hardships  are  abundantly  indemni- 
fied by  its  singular  usefulness.  It  has  enabled  us  pre- 
eminently to  preach  the  gospel  "  to  the  poor."  It  has 
given  us  the  van  rank  of  the  church  in  the  progress 
of  the  western  frontier;  and,  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  this  land,  its  fruits  are  like  the  herbage 
of  the  fields.     We  repeat,  the  missionary  ardor  and 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  155 

energy  of  the  church,  growing  out  of  its  itinerancy, 
have,  under  God,  done  this ;  and  the  day  that  this  is 
forgotten,  Methodism  begins  to  wane^* 

*  Dr.  Baird  pays  the  following  tribute  to  our  church  : — '*  Since 
its  organization  in  1784,  though  not  without  its  share  of  difficul- 
ties, its  career,  upon  the  whole,  has  been  remarkably  prosperous,  j 
and  God  has  enabled  it  to  overcome  every  hinderance  with  won-  : 
derful  success.     We  have  seen  the  numerical  amount  of  its  mem- } 
bers  sixty  years  ago  to  be  15,000 — in  1843  it  was  1,068,525' 
communicants  ;  and  the  probable  proportion  of  the  community  \ 
under  the  influence  of  this  church's  ministry,  that  is,  who  attend  , 
its  preaching,  as  stated  by  Bishop  Soule  before  the  British  Con-  i 
ference  in  August,  1842,  is  5,000,000.     Surely  we  may  well  ex- 
claim, "What  hath  God  wrought!"     It  covers  the  whole  land  I 
with  its  network  system  of  stations  and  circuits,  and  carries  the^ 
gospel  into  thousands  of  the  most  remote,  as  well  as  the  mosti 
secluded  and  thinly-peopled  neighborhoods.     This  denomination! 
has  made  great  exertions  to  increase  the  number  of  its  churchy 
edifices  within  the  last  few  years  ;  but  its  itinerating  ministers  | 
preach  in  thousands  of  places  where  no  such  buildings  are  yet .' 
erected,  or,  at  least,  none  belonging  to  that  denomination.     In  i 
these  cases  they  hold  their  meetings  in  school-houses,  court- 
houses, and  private  houses.     No  American  Christian,  who  takes 
a  comprehensive  view  of  the  progress  of  religion  in  this  country, 
and  considers  how  wonderfully  the  means  and  instrumentalities  \ 
employed  are  adapted  to  the  extent  and  the  wants  of  that  coun-  / 
try,  can  hesitate  for  a  moment  to  bless  God  for  having,  in  his;' 
mercy,  provided  them  all.     Nor  will  he  fail  to  recognize  in  the', 
Methodist  economy,  as  well  as  in  the  zeal,  the  devoted  piety,  and  ] 
the  efficiency  of  its  ministry,  one  of  the  most  powerful  elements 
in  the  religious  prosperity  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  one  of 
the  firmest  pillars  of  their  civil  and  political  institutions.^^ 


156  ClIUBCH  GOVEENMENT. 

CHAPTER  III. 

THE  ArPOlNTING  POWER   OF  EPISCOPACr. 

Three  modes  of  appointment — First,  by  the  preachers  and 
people  in  common — Second,  by  a  committee  of  preachers  and 
laymen — Third,  the  episcopal  mode. 

The  cldef  object  of  our  system  being  determined, 
the  question  respecting  its  chiefs  or  directing  powers 
recurs.  Where  shall  the  appointing  power  be  vested  ? 
for  it  must  exist,  aad  Mii  vigorously,  to  propel  such 
machinery. 

I.  Ik  it  «iw*r,  ^imt,  it  cannot  be  left  to  the  preachers 
and  societies  themselves  ;  because 

1      flnatli   «—  ^^    iiiiMiliiiinii  ■    ^  ^^^^    ^^^^  ±-\--j. 

the  largest  societies  would  lie  diflpoaod.  ii  choose  the 
most  popular  men,  and  the  more  popular  preachers 
would  1m  UmA^jt  I*  reciprocate  ikm  diupuiiiiion.  The 
wealthier  would  thus  keep  always  the  best  preachers, 
and  the  gifts  of  the  ministry  would  not  be  distributed. 
One  important  advantage  of  the  itinerancy  would 
hereby  be  lost. 

2._The  less  able  jDreachers,  kept  by  the  above 
course  in  the  feeble  appointments,  would  sooner  or  later 
1m  itaMwl  ««e,  «r  ttBipriM  m  retire  tv  tiMir  ^mmk- 
olwyi  mmL  jlawglii,  and  a  large  portion  of  our  work  be 
abandoned.  Tliis  imM  jwiiit  -tiifc  we  can  hardly  now 
avoid.  The  least  relaxation  would  render  it  uncon- 
trollable, and  %m,  m  im  ^mm  nM,  ir  Aiwi  «£  Mr 

^     ^^f^^^^^ J      1-      ^     ^^a. 

.  We  -soberly  believ-e  -that  thifl 
resnJti  would  onfe««4n  a  very  few  years  after  sueh  an 
tuffftpg^aient  ^-tl^-appointlBg  power. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  157 

3.  Many  societies  would  1»  Mek  4«  choose  the 
same  man,  and  many  men  the  same  place ;  who  shall 
^en  decide  ?     And, 

4.  If  even  there  could  be  devised  a  mode  of  deter- 
mining such  cases,  yet  if  the  itinerancy  is  to  be  main- 
tained  in  fact,  and   not  merely  in  name;   if  these 
changes  are  to  be  as_frequent  and  as  extensive  as 
they  now  are,  what  m  wmmm  rf  negotiation,  strife,  an4 
disappointment  iMnt^ln  UnHml  every  year  or  two  in 
the   societies?     Would   not  these   inevitable   conse- 
quences more  than  counterbalance  the  advantages  of 
such  an  abortive  itinerancy  ?     Would  it  not  be  better 
to  turn  Congi-egationalist  entirely,  and  at  once  ?     Yet 
this  is  virtually  the  system  of  the  recent  seceders ;  for 
though  they  have  a  committee  to  adjust  the  appoint- 
ments, yet  their  preachers  and  societies  are  allowed  to 
negotiate  beforehand,  and  the  committee  are  to  con- 
form to  these  previous  negotiations  as  far  as  prac- 
ticable.    In   England,  where   ample   funds  are  pos- 
sessed, and  no  new  appointment  received  unless  it 
can,  by  the  aid  of  these  funds,  maintain  a  preacher, 
this  plan  might  operate ;  but  here  it  is  s»  b^t^',  xmf, 
ft  H  worse,  than  Congregationalism.    If  the  committee^ 
should  not  imm.  ft  puMtitalrie  i»  conform  to  such'^ 
arrangements,   what  cbasirtisftK^ioa  mmk   strife  must  \ 
follow  tfaft  jmf^ma»  «f  tiw  igeBemfmsf  n^jyrtiwlau'inj  ?    MmA  \ 
if  they  do  conform  it  Hmm.,  a  few  leading  men  will  ' 
always  possess  the  best  appointments,  while  the  feebler 


societies  and  preachers  must  dwiiiilli  «mI  fail  through  j 
neglect. 

II.  B  ii  (WtiUmt  thnt  a  committee  of  preachers  and 
laymen  could  not  best  conduct  it. 

1.  Such  a  committee  «nU  mdi  "ff^  ^interested. 


158  CnURCII  GOVERNMENT. 

The  preachers  on  it  would  have  an  Interest  in  the 
appointments,  as  would  also  the  societies  to  which  the 
laymen  belong. 

2.  Such  a  committee  would  be  composed  of  sec- 
tional  men ;  they  could  not  be  well  acquainted  with 
all  the  appointment^,  and  iho  qnnlificntions  and  con- 
venii'iicc.-  (.r  ilic  i'.'-|iccti\ (■  prraclicr-.  Suppose  this 
committee,  lor  exiunplc,  composed  of  three  preachers 
in  the  New-England  Conference,  one  from  Boston, 
one  from  Worcester,  and  one  from  Springfield,  and  as 
many  laymen  from  the  same  or  other  j)laces,  what 
could  they  do  with  the  appointment  of  a  hundred  or 
more  men  to  all  parts  of  tlie  commonwealtli  ?  Of 
most  of  the  places  they  could  know  notliing.  They 
must,  therefore,  have  written  or  personal  communica- 
tions from  most  of  the  appointments ;  these  must  be 
heard,  read,  compared,  discussed,  &c.  Amid  such 
confusion,  harassed  by  conflicting  claims,  how  and 
when  could  they  come  to  a  conclusion  of  the  business? 
How  much  preferable  is  a  permanent  committee,  (such 
as  our  bishops  and  presiding  elders  virtually  are,) 
who,  by  making  this  their  responsibility,  and  tra- 
versing the  whole  field,  can  become  acquainted  with 
the  abilities  and  wants  of  the  individual  preachers 
and  societies,  and,  by  having  no  share  in  the  appoint- 
ments, can  be  disinterested  ? 

3.  Such  a  committee  would  require  a_po£ular  elec- 
tion in  jthe^onference  ;  electioneering  and  caucusing, 
with  their  usual  evils,  favoritism  among  the  preach- 
ers, and  consequent  jealousies  and  dissensions,  would 
follow. 

4.  We  have  said  that  the  members  of  such  a  com- 
mittee would  have  a  personal  interest  in  the  appoint- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  159 

ments ;  now  if  it  were  limited  to  four  or  five,  in  order 
to  keep  out,  as  much  as  possible,  this  selfish  inter- 
ference, it  could  not,  as  we  have  shown,  represent 
generally  the  societies ;  it  could  not  know  well  their 
wants,  while,  as  we  have  stated,  our  present  plan  in- 
cludes usually  four  or  five — the  presiding  elders  and 
bishops — without  these  disadvantages.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  ij  should  be  numerous,  including  repre- 
sentatives from  all,  or  most,  of  the  societies,  it  would 
be  a  large  popular  assembly,  and  never  able  to  come 
to  a  determination  of  so  many  and  such  various 
claims,  and  would  merely  give  but  a  fuller  play  to 
the  selfish  interests  of  its  members — and  what  must 
be  the  "confusion  worse  confounded"  which  would 
result  where  an  appeal  is  allowed,  as  in  the  system 
of  the  late  seceders,  from  the  decisions  of  the  com- 
mittee to  the  whole  conference,  more  or  less  of  the 
members  of  which  must  be  involved  in  any  change  ? 

5.  Similar  modifications  of  the  appointing  power 
have  been  adopted  by  the  Protestant  Methodists,  and 
have  failed.     If^  wonld  net  la^mp  i&  tk«ee  WotbicQii, 

IhuI  ••  aioiTiiimg  omfi<BiiiHi  '-on  what  w  ftuabiiim'" ' jftif^jca* 
jHwtnuli  ffiwrii'mw  Ito— ninbo  doniod  that  their  inno- 
vation has  proved  abortive.  At  their  secession  they 
carried  with  them  a  strong  ministerial  force,  and  a 
considerable  lay  membership ;  but  with  all  the  advan- 
tages of  later  secessions  from  the  parent  church,  plausi- 
ble appeals  to  the  popular  feeling  in  favor  of  lay  rights, 
the  great  revivals  of  the  times,  and  twenty-five  years 
of  agitation,  and  eighteen  of  organized  efibrt,  they 
number  but  little  more  than  one-third  of  the  increase 
alone  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  a  single 


160  CHUBCn    GOVERNMENT. 

year.  They  have  not  erected  in  New-England,  the 
stronghold  of  lay  rights,  a  dozen  chapels  during  all 
these  yciu's  of  agitation  and  effort.  The  itinerant 
system  moves  heavily  among  them.  In  many  im- 
portant places  it  is  virtually  suspended,  and  many 
of  their  societies  and  preachers,  tired  of  the  irregu- 
larity and  distraction  of  the  plan,  have  returned  to  the 
bosom  of  the  elder  church. 

^    in.  In  view  of  these  considerations,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  has  chosen  superintendents  in  whom 
■  to  vest  this  power — men  who  have  no  local  or  selfish 
I  interest  in  it,  but  travel  over  the  whole  land,  and  are 
■counseled  and  aided  by  presiding  elders,  whose  local 
inspection  of  the  societies  enables  the  superintendent 
to  suit  his  appointments  to   their  necessities.     How 
M)  could  this  power  be  better  vested  ?     Our  Enghsh  bre- 
^  thi'cn  have  a  committee  of  preachers  alone,  but  these 
j  have  a  selfish  interest  in  the  appointments ;  while  we 
have  virtually  such  a  committee,  (the  presiding  elders 
and  bishops,)  but  so  situated  as  not  to  have  any  such 
personal  interests.      The  occasional  embarrassments 
►which  attend  our  method  are   believed  to  be  much 
less  serious  than  those  which  occur  in  the  appoint- 
ments of  the  Wesleyan  committee,  and  the  efficiency 
J  of  our  system,  as  attested  by  its  results,  is  far  in  ad- 
]^vance  of  that  of  the  transatlantic  Methodists. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  161 


CHAPTER  IV. 

CHECKS   ON  THE  SYSTEM. 

Checks  of  the  ministry  on  the  episcopacy — Checks  of  the 
people  on  the  whole  systena — Restrictions  of  the  bishops — Re- 
flections. 

Having  thus  stated  the  chief  object  of  our  system, 
and  its  appropriate  directing  power,  the  thu'd  question 
returns, —  What  checks  are  there  to  this  necessary  ap- 
pointing power  ^  To  simply  assert  that  the  bishops 
have  it,  as  our  opponents  do,  without  the  above  views 
and  others  that  remain,  is  as  startling  as  it  is  false. 
Such  a  power,  unnecessary  and  unbalanced,  would  not 
be  tolerated  by  Methodists  one  hour. 

Here,  then,  for  the  extraordinary  advantages  of  the 
itinerancy,  are  the  preachers,  on  the  one  hand,  giving 
up  the  choice  of  theii*  appointments,  and  submitting  to 
be  sent,  like  men  in  battle,  to  all  points  of  the  field ; 
and  the  people,  on  the  other,  abandoning  the  choice 
of  their  pastors.  The  sacrifice  is  common  to  both; 
both  ought,  therefore,  to  have  a  check  upon  the  ap- 
pointing power ;  but  as  it  bears  most  onerously  on  the 
preacher,  he  should  have  the  strongest  control  of  it. 
What  checks,  theii, Jiaye  the  ministry  on  this  power? 

1.  They  elect  the  officer  who  bears  it.  Methodist 
bishops  have  no  vote  in  the  appointment  of  their  asso- 
ciates or  successors;  while  in  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  though  every  member  of  the  lower 
house  of  the  General  Convention-  should  vote  for  a 
candidate,  the  bishops  can  reverse  his  election. 

2.  The  bishop  is  responsible  to  them  for  his  con- 


162  CHURCH  govi:unmi:nt. 

duct,  private  and  official;  while,  in  the  Protestant 
Episcoj)al  Church,  a  bishop  can  be  tried  and  deposed 
only  by  bishops. 

3.  They  can  modify  or  utterly  abolish  his  power  in 
the  General  Conference.  T^his  is  certainly  sufficient 
control.  This  terrible  power,  which  is  represented  as 
tyrannizing  over  their  destmies,  is  then  created,  con- 
trolled, and  can  he  anniJiilated  by  them  at  their  plea- 
sure. Are  they  slaves,  then?  Or  is  not  their  ex- 
ample in  this  respect  one  of  the  noblest  instances  of 
heroic  self-sacrifice  on  the  earth  ?  Is  it  noj  morally 
sublime  ?  and  should  it  not  excite  the  admiration,  in- 
stead of  the  abuse,  of  their  fellow-Christians  ? 

In  the  next  place.  What  check  have  the  people  on 
this_  machinery  ?  It  is  clear,  that  as  the  preachers 
appoint  the  bishops,  and  the  bishops  distribute  the 
preachers,  the  people  should  check  the  whole  plan  by 
a  counterbalance  upon  the  whole  ministerial  body. 

1.  This  is  provided  in  the  most  decisive  form  _that 
it  could  possibly  assume,  namely,  the  power  ofjpecu- 
niary  suj^plii's.  No  sfipuhited  contract  for  support 
exists  in  the  Methodist  economy.  The  Discipline 
allows  a  certain  support,  but  does  not  enforce  it ;  and 
no  Methodist  preacher  can  prosecute  a  civil  suit  for 
his  salary.*  The  General  Conference  disclaims  all 
right  to  tax  the  property  of  our  members.  A  Me- 
thodist church  has  no  necessity,  in  order  to  control  or 
remove  the  preacher,  to  prosecute  him  by  a  tedious 
and  expensive  process  at  law,  but  simply  to  signify 
that  after  a  given  date  his  supplies  cease.     He  can- 

*  The  word  salary  was  changed  in  the  Discipline  to  "alloiO' 
ance,'^  in  1808,  the  year  when  a  delegated  General  Conference 
was  established. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  163 

not  live  on  air;   he  must  submit  or  depart.     This 
would  be  a  sufficient   guaranty,  certainly;    and  this 
check  applies  not  merely  to  a  specific  prerogative  of 
the  ministry,  but   to   the   whole   ministerial   system. 
The  lamented  Dr,  Emor^  thus  states  it : — "  We  have"] 
said  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  possesses! 
effective  and  substantial  security  against  any  encroach-/ 
ments  of  tyranny  on  the  part  of  her  pastors.     Thisi 
security,  to  say  nothing  of  higher  principles,  is  amply 
provided  in  the  fact,  so  obvious  to  common  sense,  that 
the  interests  of  the  preachers,  as  men,  are  not  only 
coincident,  but  identical,  with  all  the  interests  which; 
bind  them  to  be  good  pastors ;  and  that  these  again 
are  identical  with  the  interests  of  the  people.     They 
cannot  possibly  have  any  earthly  motive  for  settin*; 
themselves  in  opposition  to  the  people.    All  human  ^ 
motives  are  on  the  other  side.     And  the  fargreater 
danger  is,  that  ^ir  sense  of  dependence,  and  the 
pressure  or  apprehension  of  want,  may  tempt  them, 
in  the_general  state  of  our  poor  fallen  nature,  to  lower 
the  gospel  standard,  and  to  rehu:  its  holy  discipline,  in 
accommodation  to  the  common  frailties  of  those  who , 
hold  over  them,  and  over  their  wives  and  children, 
and  all  most  dear  to  them,  the  fearful  power  of  feed- ) 
ing  or  starving  them  at  discretion.     For  the  sober 
truth  is,  that  there  is  not  a  body  of  ministry  in  the 
world  more  perfectly  dependent  on  those  whom  they 
serve  than  the  Methodist  itinerant  ministry.    In  those 
churches  which  have  a  lay  representation,  the  pastors 
make  legal  contracts  with  their  people,  and  have  legal 
remedies  to  enforce  their  fulfillment.     We  make  no 
such  contracts,  and  have  no  such  remedies.     In  this, 
our  system  is  more  Scriptural,  and  renders  us  more 


164  CUURCU   GOVERNMENT. 

;  dependent.  It  places  us,  in  fact,  not  only  from  year 
I  to  year,  or  from  quarter  to  (puirter,  but  from  week  to 
(week,  within  the  reach  of  such  a  controlling  check,  on 
the  part  of  the  people,  as  is  possessed,  we  verily  be- 
lieve, by  no  other  denomination  whatever ;  and  which 
is  considered,  both  by  them  and  by  us,  as  a  relinquish- 
ment of  what  might  be  claimed,  on  our  part,  fully 
j  equivalent  to  the  relinquishment,  on  their  part,  of  a 
[direct  representation  in  our  General  Conferences." 

2.  Another  powerful  check  is,  that  the  people,  them- 
selves make  all  their  preachers.  No  man  becomes  a 
preacher  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  unless 
he  is  first  recommended  by  the  society  of  which  he  is 
a  member,  or  the  leaders'  meeting.  With  this  recom- 
mendation he  goes  before  the  quarterly  conference, 
which  is  composed  almost  entu'ely  of  laymen,  and 
they  license  him.  The  preacher,  presiding  elder,  or 
bishop  himself,  cannot  give  this  license ;  he  can  only 
tcrite  it  when  the  people  thus  order  it.  And  if  all  the 
bishops  and  preachers  in  the  land  should  wish  the 
preacher  thus  licensed  to  become  a  member  of  the 
conference,  or  traveling  connection,  he  cannot,  with- 
out the  permission  of  the  laymen  of  the  quarterly 
conference.  A  candidate  for  license  must  then,  first, 
be  recommended  by  a  body  of  laymen;  second,  this 
recommendation  must  be  accepted  by  another  body  of 
laymen ;  third,  liis  license  must  be  annually  renewed 
by  laymen  ;  fourth,  if  he  wishes  ordination^  it  must  be 
voted  by  laymen ;  fifth,  if  he  wishes  admission  to  the 
conference,  he  must  be  recommended  by  laymen. 

A  popular  control  of  the  ministry,  equal  to  these 
two  examples,  we  know  not  elsewhere  in  the  Christian 
church.     It  might  be  abused  to  the  great  injury,  or 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  165 

even  destruction,  of  the  churcli ;  but  the  interests  of 
the  laity  require  its  right  use,  just  as  the  interests  of 
the  clergy  requu'e  the  right  use  of  their  powers ;  and 
it  would  be  about  as  proper  to  provide  laws  against 
such  abuse  as  it  would  to  provide  laws  to  keep  our 
opponents  from  hanging  themselves.  Such  powers 
have,  indeed,  been  abused,  and  men  have  also  hung 
themselves ;  but  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind 
is  itself  sufficient  law  agamst  such  liabilities. 

In  this  sense  it  may  be  said  that  the  Methodists 
elect  their  pastors.  The  church  in  any  given  confer- 
ence is  a  unit.  The  societies  supply  the  preachers 
for  this  general  church,  through  the  quarterly  confer- 
ence, with  the  understanding,  that  out  of  the  body  of 
pastors  thus  provided  by  themselves,  they  are  to  have 
a  preacher  who  is  to  be  appointed  in  such  manner  as 
the  best  interests  of  the  whole  church  demand. 

To  these  remarks  it  may  be  objected,  that  the 
preacher  has  the  privilege  of  appointing  some  of 
the  officers  of  the  church,  who,  ex-officio,  are  mem- 
bers  of  the  quarterly  conference. 

He  nominates  the  stewards,  but  this  can  be  no 
material  objection;  for,  as  the  quarterly  conference 
elects  them,  it  can  compel  him  to  nominate  such  as  are 
satisfactory.  But  the  leaders  he  appoints;  and  he 
should  do  so  for  these  good  reasons :  1.  Their  work  is  -^ 
entirely  his  ;  it  is  pastoral  labor.  The  labors  of  long 
circuits  would  not  at  first  allow  the  preacher  to  visit 
much  the  members  of  the  local  appointments.  Lead- 
ers did,  and  still  do,  this  work  in  another  form.  It  is 
a  spiritual  supervision  of  the  church,  rightfully  per- 
taining to  the  ministry ;  but  in  this  case  delegated  in 
part  to  the  leaders.     The  ministiy  should  certainly 


166  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

Lave  tlic  power  to  choose  their  delegates  to  do  their 
own  work.      2.  "\Miat  might  be   tlie   results   if  the 

^  classes  should  choose  their  own  leaders,  as  among  the 
seceders  ?  These  classes  are  often  composed  of  young 
converts,  and  include  all  members,  however  excitable 
or  extravagant.  The  man  who  could  be  most  ex- 
travagant would,  in  many  cases,  be  preferred;  not 
the  aged  and  experienced,  who  could  instruct  and 
build  them  up.      3.  The   process   of  electioneering, 

'  through  all  the  classes  once  a  year,  would  produce 
endless  distractions  and  feuds;   and,  4.  Members  of 

^  classes  who  should  vote  against  their  leader,  would 
ever  feel  uneasy  under  his  guidance;  his  reproofs 
would  be  construed  into  party  prejudice,  and  his  admo- 
nitions be  rejected.  Better  would  it  be  to  give  up  the 
classes,  than  have  them  thus  fountains  of  discord.  But 
though  he  appoints  these  officers,  it  is  obvious  that 
every  motive  is  in  favor  of  the  right  use  of  this  power, 
and  the  preceding  check  applies  here  most  effectually. 
"These  remarks  [on  the  pecuniary  check]  apply 
not  only  to  the  mode  in  which  the  preachers  are  ap- 
pointed— on  a  principle  of  mutual  sacrifice  for  the 
general  good,  and  one  to  wliich  we  believe  our  people 
peculiarly  attached,  in  support  of  an  itinerant  system 
— but  they  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  whole  of  the 
official  conduct  of  each  individual  pastor ;  and,  above 
all,  in  his  appointment  of  class-leaders,  of  which  so 
much  has  been  said.  That  the  pastor,  agreeably  to 
our  Discipline,  possesses  the  right,  as  a  branch  of  his 
pastoral  oversight,  to  appoint  whom  he  thinks  best 
qualified  to  aid  liim,  as  leaders,  and  to  continue  to 
change  them,  is  not  disputed.  But  it  is  equally  cer- 
tain, on  the  other  hand,  that  the  means  of  his  support 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  167 

are  in  the  hands  of  the  classes;  and  that  the  supply- 
ing or  withholdmg  it,  as  they  judge  proper,  is  as  indis- 
putably their  right.  Were  a  preacher,  therefore, 
governed  by  no  better  principle  than  his  own  interest,  -^ 
he  could  not  successfully  resist  the  just  wishes  of  the 
classes  by  arbitrarily  obtruding  on  them  obnoxious 
leaders.  Suppose  a  preacher  should  even  be  so 
stupid,  or  so  wicked,  as  to  attempt  a  course  of  tyran- 
nical appointments.  In  the  fii^  place,  he  may  be 
arrested  at  any  period  of  the  year,  on  application  to  a 
bishop  or  presiding  elder,  and,  if  convicted,  may  be 
removed,  and  degraded  from  the  pastoral  charge ;  or, 
secOTidly,  supposing  it  even  possible  that  redress  from 
these  sources  should  be  delayed  or  denied,  is  it  not 
plain  that  the  classes  have  the  means  of  redress  in 
their  own  hands?  Suppose  they  should  say  to  the 
pastor — and  in  circumstances  of  such  extremity  they 
would  be  justified  in  saying  it — If  you  obstinately  per- 
sist in  the  vexatious  exercise  of  an  extreme  power  to 
force  on  us  obnoxious  leaders,  we  will  also  exercise 
our  extreme  power  to  withhold  our  contributions. 
Where  would  be  his  empty  boast  ?  Would  he  not  be 
paralyzed  at  once  ?  Who  does  not  see,  then,  that  on 
our  system,  the  true  effective  power  is,  in  reality,  in 
the  hands  of  the  people;  and  more  perfectly  so,  in 
fact,  than  in  almost  any  other  denomination?  It  is 
such  a  power  that  the  preachers  must  be  mad  to  pro- 
voke its  array  against  them,  and  more  than  men  to 
be  able  to  resist  it."— i)r.  Emory. 

These  are  some  of  the  respective  checks  of  preach- 
ers and  people  on  the  necessary  power  which  moves 
the  itinerancy,  and  of  the  latter,  on  the  whole  minis- 
terial system.     What  sober  man  will  say,  in  view  of 


168  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

them,  that  any  revolutionary  outcry  against  the  pro- 
bable abuse  of  such  a  system,  is  not  preposterous? 
But  there  are  others  equally  remarkable,  and  as  they 
are  habitual,  they  may  be  considered  common  to 
both. 

1.  The  bishops  who  have  this  power  itinerate 
throughout  the  land,  and  are  therefore  cut  off  from 
local  or  selfish  partialities  in  making  the  appoint- 
ments. They  may  be  now  in  Illinois,  and  next  season 
in  Maine,  and  are  more  than  any  other  men  "  in  la- 
bors abundant." 

2.  They  have  no  superior  salaries  above  their  bre- 
thren of  the  ministry,  and  are  considered  to  be  of  the 
same  ministerial  order,  having  only  a  distinct  office, 
which  itself  is  based  on  expediency,  not  on  an  alledged 
apostolic  succession. 

3.  They  have  no  vote  in  any  question  to  be  decided 
in  General  or  Annual  Conferences,  not  even  in  making 
rules  hy  which  they  themselves  are  to  he  governed. 

4.  Their  conduct,  both  private  and  official,  is  ex- 
amined at  every  General  Conference  by  a  committee 
of  one  from  each  annual  conference.  They  are  thus 
virtually  arraigned  and  examined  every  four  years, 
however  pure  their  reputation. 

5.  Any  person,  lay  or  clerical,  can  appear  before 
this  committee  and  accuse  the  bishop,  and  that,  too,  in 
his  absence,  and  without  giving  him  any  previous 
notice. 

6.  A  bishop  may  be  arrested  and  expelled  not  only 
for  immoral,  but  for  improper,  conduct — a  severity 
used  toward  no  other  member  of  the  church ;  for  "  no 
one  but  a  bishop,  not  even  a  child  or  a  slave,  can  be 
expelled  for  the  first  improper  act  of  that  character.** 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  169 

And  an  improper  use  of  his  powers  comes  under  this 
head. 

7.  If  a  bishop  be  expelled  he  has  no  appeal:  a 
i)rivilege  enjoyed  in  any  other  department  of  the 
church.* 

If  there  is  any  oppression  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  it  is  on  the  bishops.  No  officer  of  any  other 
enlightened  body  on  earth,  civil  or  religious,  is  so 
severely  restrained;  and  it  is  indeed  questionable 
whether  any  man  should  expose  himself  to  the  lia- 
bilities which  may  result  from  such  peculiar  restric- 
tions. 

It  is  obvious,  from  the  foregoing  pages,  that  the 
change  proposed  by  seceders  in  our  economy  is 
scarcely  more  than  a  ^natter  of  form,  so  far  as  a  lay 
control  of  the  church  is  concerned,  while  its  difficulties 
and  results  would  be  matters  of  serious  reality. 

We  have  been  compelled,  in  these  brief  limits,  to 
present  merely  the  skeleton  of  our  arguments,  but  they 
afford  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  system  of  Method- 
ism ;  and,  now,  how  does  it  appear  thus  viewed  ?  and 
how  appear  by  the  side  of  it  those  partial  statements 
of  our  opponents,  which,  in  describing  its  ministerial 
functions,  so  cautiously  omit  its  powerful  checks  and 
balances?  What  becomes  of  the  slavery  of  the 
preachers  and  people?  Instead  of  servility,  they 
are  presenting  an  instance  of  disinterested  sacrifice 
and  labor  which  allies  them  to  the  Christians  of  the 
first  ages,  and  the  results  of  which,  on  both  sides  of 
the  Atlantic,  are  exciting  the  interest  of  Christendom. 

The  complex,  and  yet  harmonious,  constitution  of 

*  See  Hedding  on  the  Discipline  for  these  and  further  par- 
ticulars. 

8 


170  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

the  Methodist  Church  in  the  United  States,  would  be 
an  interesting  subject  of  further  discussion  had  we 
space.  It  is  a  powerful  system  of  wh^ls  within 
wheels,  but  all  revolving  with  the  facility  of  a  well- 
made  machine ;  the  power  which  propels  it  at  one 
extremity  being  balanced  by  appropriate  checks  at 
the  other.  Our  general  conferences  occumng  once 
in  four  years,  the  annual  conferences  once  a  year,  the 
quarterly  conferences  once  in  three  months,  the  lead- 
ers* meetings  once  a  month,  the  classes  once  a  week, 
form  an  admirable  series  of  gradations,  extending 
from  one  week  to  four  years,  and  covering  all  the 
successive  intervals.  To  these  correspond,  also,  our 
gradations  of  labor — bishops  traversing  the  continent, 
presidin<y  elders  traveling  over  extended  districts,  cir- 
cuit  preachers  occupying  less_extensi ve  fields,  assisted 
by  local  preachers  and  exhorters ;  and,  finally,  leaders 
inspecting,  weekly,  divisions  of  the  local  societies. 
^  This  system  has  worked  well,  the  surest  proof  to 
sensible  men  of  its  excellence.  The  objections  to  it 
refer  to  hypothetical  consequences.  Its  history  re- 
cords no  serious  abuse,  no  more  serious  defects  than 
such  individual  acts  of  administration  as  result  from 
the  common  imperfections  of  our  nature,  and  are 
liable  to  occur  in  the  best  legislatures  and  the  purest 
courts  of  justice. 

(And  now,  if  from  the  difference  in  their  origin,  na- 
ture, and  design,  it  is  not  necessary  that  religious  poli- 
-  ties  should  be  modeled  on  civil  ones^if  most  secular 
voluntary  combinations  are  not  so  constructe^-^if  no 
3 :  leading  denomination  in  the  land  has  so  modeled  its 
jj  systeni)-^if  there  is  no  liability  in  ours  calling  for  such 
4.  a  change)-^f  such  a  change  is  perilous^if  it  is  im- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  171 

practicable)-^if  the  only  object  in  ecclesiastical  organi- 
zations should  be  practical  utility,  guarded  against 
oppressive  tendencies^-^nd  if  this  system  has  excelled 
all  others  in  utility,  and  is  thoroughly  guarded  against 
such  tendencies,  and  has  never  seriously  developed 
such  tendencies,  shall  we  not  hesitate,  nay,  shall  we 
not  shrink  with  most  serious  scrupulosity  from  any 
innovation  which,  by  changing  its  essential  features, 
may  enervate  its  action  and  frustrate  its  providential 
mission  ?  It  is  now  under  as  salutary  a  popular  con- 
trol as  any  representative  arrangement  could  be ;  why, 
then,  sacrifice  or  risk  its  eflBciency;  why  throw  into 
rancorous  tumult  its  community,  as  has  repeatedly 
been  attempted,  merely  to  put  this  sufficient  control 
in  another  form,  having  no  other  advantage  than  a 
vaunted  resemblance  to  a  system  which  has  an  entirely^ 
different  nature  and  purpose  ?  And  do  not  those,  who, 
by  outcries  of  tyranny,  and  clamorous  and  unfounded 
appeals  to  political  sentiments,  attempt  to  destroy  this 
system,  and  break  up  the  churches  which  its  friends, 
through  years  of  labor  and  toil,  have  founded,  under- 
take a  work  which  good  men  should  tremble  to  as- 
sume? 

It  is  this  system  of  voluntary  self-sacrifice  and  labor 
that  is  denounced  by  our  antagonists  as  "  oppression 
and  vassalage."  It  needs  only  to  be  examined  to  be  -^ 
approved.  Bj  it,  the  gospel  has  kept  pace  with  our 
frontier  settlements;  by  it,  we  have  conveyed  the 
word  of  God  into  almost  every  nook  and  corner  of 
the  land ;  by  it,  we  have  gathered  nearly  one  hundred 
thousand  African  slaves  into  the  church,  and  more  of 
the  savages  of  the  wilderness  than  aU  other  Christian 
denominations  put  together;  hj  it,  we  have  spread  a 


172  cnuRcn  government. 

moral  leaven  throughout  the  whole  practical  class  of 
our  population,  and  into  some  of  the  higher  spheres 
of  society ;  and  in  its  communion  are  now  imbodied  a 
million  of  our  fellow-citizens,  besides  several  millions 
who  attend  its  worship.  Under  the  blessing  of  our 
Lord,  we  have  thus  succeeded  by  our  pecuhar  system ; 
and  while  he  thus  approves  it,  we  may  safely  abide 
under  it,  and  commit  to  it  our  children. 


CHAPTER  V. 

OBJECTIONS  TO,  AND  DANGERS  OF,  THE  ITINERANCY. 

Unsuitable  appointments — Less  dangerous  than  with  Congre- 
gationalism— Dissatisfaction  at  the  removal  of  successful  pastors 
— Itinerancy  applicable  to  cities — Negotiations  between  preach- 
ers and  churches — Multiplication  of  small  stations. 

We  have  presented  in  the  preceding  pages  a  de- 
fensive view  of  the  general  principles  of  our  church 
government.  Of  the  constituent  departments  of  the 
system,  and  the  functions  which  pertain  to  them,  no 
more  has  been  said  than  is  deemed  essential  for  the 
vindication  of  these  general  or  fundamental  principles. 
Any  further  detail  is  rendered  unnecessary,  as  the 
book  of  Discipline  is  everywhere  accessible,  and  a 
minute  description  of  the  several  functions  of  the 
system  must  needs  be  but  a  copy  of  that  volume. 

There  are,  however,  two  very  important  features  of 
our  economy  which  are  liable  to  be  impaired  if  not 
mere  seriously  affected  by  somewhat  prevalent  opinions, 
and  to  which  we  would,  therefore,  direct  special  at- 
tention. 

It  is  obvious  from  the  preceding  discussion  that  the 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  173 

grand  peculiarity  of  the  Methodist  ecclesiastical  system 
is  the  itinerancy  of  its  ministry.  This  is  the  corner- 
stone of  the  whole  structure.  How  carefully,  then, 
should  it  be  guarded  against  deterioration !  Bishops'] 
Asbury  and  Coke,  in  their  explanatory  "Notes  onl 
Discipline,"  (Discipline,  1798,  pp.  40-44,)  say:  "  Our^ 
grand-flan,  in  all  its  parts,  leads  to  an  itinerant  minis-j 
try.  Our  bishops  are  traveling  bishops.  All  the  dif-j 
ferent  orders  which  compose  our  conferences  are  em- 
ployed in  the  traveling  line  ;  and  our  local  preachers, 
are,  in  some  degree,  traveling  preachers.  Everything, 
is  kept  moving  as  far  as  possible ;  and  we  will  be  boldj 
to  say,  that,  next  to  the  grace  of  God,  there  is  nothing! 
like  this  for  keeping  the  whole  body  alive,  from  the 
centre  to  the  circumference,  and  for  the  continual  ex;j 
tension  of  that  cii'cumference  on  every  hand."  We 
need  constantly  to  be  reminded  of  its  signal  advan- 
tages, and  the  comparative  insignificance  of  its  incon- 
veniences, if  we  would  keep  ourselves  from  becoming 
infected  with  the  Congregational  and  more  popular 
views  of  other  sects. 

1.  One  of  its  alledged  inconveniences  is,  the  j/a- 
hility  of  disappointment  among  the  people,  in  respect 
to  a  pastor,  who,  in  most  cases,  has  been  little,  or  not 
at  all,  known  to  them,  and  in  whose  appointment  they 
have  had  little  or  no  direct  agency.  It  is  not  denied 
that  such  disappointments  do  occur,  and  they  probably 
produce  more  prejudice  than  any  other  cause  against 
the  itinerant  system,  and  occasion  the  most  perplexing 
trials  of  the  episcopacy.  Yet,  if  there  were  no  other 
relieving  fact,  would  not  the  extraordinary  utility  of 
the  system  be  a  sufficient  counterbalance  to  this  inci- 
dental evil  ?     Review  the  proofs  of  its  utility  given  in 


174  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

the  preceding  pages,  and  answer.     Though,  therefore, 
the  evil  is  admitted,  it  is  not  admitted  to  be  sufTiciently 
serious  to  be  contrasted  for  a  moment  with  the  unde- 
niable excellences  of  the  plan.      It  occurs  but  occa- 
sionally.    In  most  instances  it  is  but  pai'tial,  affecting 
"*  a  small  minority.     In  many  instances  it  is  soon  dissi- 
f  pated  by  a  better  acquaintance  with  the  new  pastor, 
land,  in  not  a  few,  it  is  converted  into  the  warmest 
[  interest  for  him,  by  unexpected  results  from  his  minis- 
try, especially  where  he  is  an  humble  and  devoted 
laborer,   and   meekly  bears  the  severe   trial   of  his 
,  faith,  to  which  such  disaffection  subjects  him.     Our 
history  is  full  of  illustrative  facts,  so  much  so,  that 
they  have  come  to  be  looked  upon  as  providential 
confirmations  of  the  system. 

But,  ag^ain :  we  contend  that  such  disappointments 
are  not  peculiar  to  an  itinerant  ministry.  They  are 
-V  quite  as  common  among  Congregationalists.  Their 
frequency  in  the  latter  case  is  notorious.  We  have 
said,  that  in  our  own  church  they  are  limited  generally 
to  a  small  minority ;  and  it  may  be  affirmed  that  this 
minority  is  usually  no  larger  than  can  be  found  equally 
dissatisfied  in  almost  every  Congregational  Church  at 
the  settlement  of  a  new  pastor.  Let  it  not  be  said, 
that  the  discontent  cannot,  in  the  latter  case,  be  so 
deep  and  dangerous  as  in  the  former,  from  the  fact, 
that  the  appointment  is  matter  of  popular  choice, 
though  subjected  to  the  control  of  the  majority ;  for 
we  reply,  that  the  economy  of  our  own  church  is  a 
matter  of  popular  choice,  though  the  ministerial  ap- 
pointments,  for  the  sake  of  the  itinerancy,  are  sub- 
jected to  the  control  of  the  episcopacy.  The  people 
enter  into   this   arrangement  voluntarily;    and  they 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  175 

prize  the  ititferancy  so  highly,  that  all  the  secessions 
from  the  main  bodies  of  the  church,  in  both  England 
and  America,  have  retained  it  tenaciously.  K,  there- 
fore, the  voluntary  agreement,  that  the  majority  shall 
rule,  should  pacify  the  discontent  of  the  minority,  it 
should  be  equally  quieted  by  the  consideration  that 
the  itinerant  system,  in  our  own  church,  has  been 
voluntarily  adopted  by  all  who  enter  our  communion. 

We  go  further,  and  assert  that  such  dissatisfactions 
are  more  liable  to  be  violent  and  pernicious  under 
Congregationalism  than  under  our  itinerant  regime, 
for  two  reasons, — 

First.  The  appointment  in  the  former  case  being 
subject  immediately  to  the  popular  voice,  is  usually 
the  occasion  of  much  previous  discussion.  Opinions 
are  compared  and  opposed;  as  a  consequence,  pas- 
sions are  often  excited,  parties  formed,  and,  not  unfre- 
quently,  churches  rent..  If,  at  last,  the  minority  sub- 
mits, the  ministrations  of  the  opposed  pastor  can 
scarcely  be  supposed  to  obtain  from  them  a  fair 
appreciation ;  his  reproofs  will  hardly  be  received 
aright ;  his  defects  will  be  liable  to  uncharitable  judg- 
ment ;  and  his  measures  to  vexatious  quibblings.  The 
itinerant  may,  indeed,  have  some  of  these  trials,  but 
not  exasperated  by  previous  and  partisan  excite- 
ments. 

Secondly.  In_the_case  of  the_  latter,  it  is  always 
known  that  a  change  can  be  effected  in  the  jcqurse^  of 
a  year,  and  doubtless  much  discontent  is  allayed  by 
this  fact,  whereas  among  our  Congregational  brethren 
no  such  regular  and  peaceful  mode  of  remedying  the 
evil  exists ;  but  the  dissatisfied  party  have  a  strong 
inducement  to  continued  and  energetic  opposition  in 


176  cnuRCn  government. 

the  consideration  that  if  tlicy  succumb,  they  either 
must  desert  the  church,  or  be  indefinitely  under  a 
ministry,  which  is  not  agreeable  to  their  judgments  or 
inclinations,  and  that  a  change  is  only  to  be  secured 
by  such  agitations  as  may  procure  them  a  majority  of 
votes. 

It  is  believed,  therefore,  that  our  system  is  not  more, 
if  it  is  not  less,  embarrassed  by  the  alledged  evil  than 
Congi*egationalism  itself. 

2.  A  more  prevalent  complaint  against  the  itineran- 
cy is  the  contrary  and  popular  objection  that  it  removes 
favorite  as  well  as  unpopular  pastors.  Tlie  objection 
arises  from  a  generous,  but  fallacious  feeling;  one 
which,  however,  has  wrung  many  hearts  with  grief. 
It  is  quite  natural  that  a  devoted  people  should  be- 
come attached  to  a  faithful  pastor ;  and  such  a  pastor 
will  generally  have  to  sunder,  at  his  departure,  the 
most  precious  ties — those  which  attach  to  him  his  own 
spiritual  children — the  lambs  whom  he  himself  has 
gathered  into  the  fold.  Difficult  indeed  must  be  such 
a  separation,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  popular 
feeling  occasionally  revolts  at  it.  Let  us,  however, 
bear  in  mind,  that  the  very  gi'ound  of  the  attachment 
is  the  reason  of  the  change.  K  the  faithful  laborer 
has  been  successful  in  his  charge,  surely  every  senti- 
ment of  Christian  benevolence  would  dictate,  that,  after 
having  expended  his  efforts  for  two  years  on  one  field, 
and  made  it  blossom  as  the  rose,  his  useful  labors 
should  be  transferred  to  a  less-favored  sphere.  The 
sacrifice  then,  however  painful,  is  characterized  by  the 
noblest  generosity  and  disinterestedness.  Let  us  ever 
thus  consider  it,  and  its  grief  even  will  become  pre- 
cious and  salutary. 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  177 

Better  is  it  by  far,  both  for  preaclier  and  people, 
tbat  tbeir  relation  should  be  changed  early  enough  to 
anticipate  that  declension  of  interest  which,  in  a  large 
majority  of  cases,  must  occur  after  the  freshness  and 
novelty  of  the  first  two  years  of  pastoral  intercourse. 
Mr.  Wesley  considered  that  two  years  were  enough  to 
exhaust  both  hia  resources  and  his  people's  interest. 
If  our  system,  then,  is  a  grievance  to  the  affections  of 
the  j)eople  in  some  instances,  it  is,  for  the  same  reason, 
the  less  liable  to  grieve  their  forbearance  in  others. 

3.  We  have  need,  thirdly,  to  guard  against  a  dispo- 
sition, occasionally  shown  in  our  denser  communities, 
to  consider  the  itinerancy  inapplicable  to  large  cities. 
Its  necessity  may  not  appear  so  urgent  in  them  as  in 
sparser  communities,  yet  it  is  unquestionably  highly 
advantageous.  Its  moral  benefits,  enumerated  in  a 
former  part  of  this  work,  are  as  great  in  the  city  as  in 
the  country,  and  perhaps  much  more  needed.  Its  in-1 
fluence  on  the  spirit  of  the  preacher ;  its  distribution  of  I 
the  variety  of  talents;  its  tendency  to  keep  alive  tliej 
sentiment  of  unity  and  co-operation  among  us ;  in  fine,j 
the  whole  moral  energy  of  the  system  may  find  fullj 
play  in  the  range  of  the  large  city.  Sad  for  our  cause 
is  it  that  we  have  begun  to  think  otherwise.  Experi- 
ment is  the  test  of  truth,  and  expei-iment  has  proved 
the  practicability  and  usefuhiess  of  an  itinerant  minis- 
try in  cities.  Until  this  day,  our  Wesleyan  brethren 
maintain  it  steadfastly  in  all  their  city  charges,  as  well 
as  their  rural  districts ;  and  we  have  successfully  main- 
tained it,  so  far  as  respects  its  annual  or  biennial 
changes. 

4.  A  fourth  danger,  against  which  we  should  be  ad- 
monished, the  more  emphatically  because  it  is  a  grow- 

8* 


178  cnuRcn  government. 

ing  one,  is  the  not  uncommon  habit  of  negotiating 
appointments  hcticccn  pnachfn  and  people.  Bishop 
Asbury,  who  so  rigorously  maintained  the  integrity  of 
our  economy,  always  contended  for  the  right  of  the 
people  to  represent  to  the  appointing  power  their  pas- 
toral wants.  It  is  equally  just  also  that  the  preachers 
should  have  a  fair  representation  of  their  necessities, 
so  far  as  these  can  affect  their  appointments ;  but  the 
church  has  provided,  in  the  office  of  the  presiding 
elder,  an  adequate  means  of  such  representation.  It 
is  his  duty  to  survey  the  whole  field  of  his  district 
quarterly,  ascertaining  the  condition  of  its  churches, 
the  character  and  qualifications  of  its  laborers,  and 
preparing  himself  to  represent  them  fully  at  the  annual 
conference.  This  practice  of  previous  negotiation  we 
have  no  hesitancy  in  pronouncing  an  utter  infraction 
of  our  economy ;  such  a  one  as  must  prove  ruinous  to 
it  if  generally  adopted;  and  such  as  no  high-minded 
Methodist  preacher,  who  has  respect  for  his  brethren 
or  himself,  ought  to  admit. 

It  is  unjust  and  embarrassing  to  the  appointing  pow- 
ers. They  are  bound  to  make  such  a  distribution  of 
the  ministry  as  the  interests  of  the  ^uJiole  church,  within 
the  limits  of  the  conference,  require ;  but  these  nego- 
tiations between  individual  churches  and  preachers 
cannot  possibly  be  founded  on  any  such  comprehensive 
view  of  the  common  good.  If  the  appointing  powers 
regard  them,  they  must,  in  most  instances,  deviate  from 
the  only  correct  principle  of  making  the  appointments, 
and  act  contrary  to  their  own  convictions  of  what  is 
just.  If  they  ^iisregard  them,  they  expose  themselves 
to  the  resentment  of  both  the  disappointed  preacher 
and  charge,  impose  the  severest  trials  on  the  pastor 


CHUKCH  GOVERNMENT.  179 

who  may  be  sent  to  the  latter,  and  risk,  perhaps,  its 
quiet  and  prosperity.  What  man,  understanding  the 
peculiarity  of  our  economy,  and  regarding  the  vows  of 
his  ordination,  can  guiltlessly  promote  such  confusion  ? 

It  is  unjust  to  all  the  other  churches  of  the  confer- 
ence. They  all  have  an  equal  claim  on  the  fair  distri- 
bution of  the  abilities  of  the  conference.  If,  however, 
any  previous  local  arrangements  should  put  beyond  their 
constitutional  command  any  portion  of  those  abilities, 
they  are  thus  far  wronged ;  and  it  is  obvious  that,  if 
such  pernicious  deviations  from  the  legal  course  are 
persisted  in,  there  is  no  protection  for  the  injured 
churches  other  than  the  adoption  of  the  same  course. 
And  who  does  not  perceive,  at  a  glance,  that  the  result 
must  be  an  entire  overthrow  of  the  itinerant  arrange- 
ment? 

Let  us  abandon,  then,  and  frown  down  this  unwar- 
rantable conduct.  Doubtless  it  may  be  natural  enough, 
and  not  particularly  dangerous,  for  preachers  and  the 
officers  of  churches  to  indulge  in  casual  expressions  of 
their  mutual  predilections,  or  even  to  have  more  seri- 
ous consultations  about  their  future  pastoral  arrange- 
ments ;  but  never  should  these  measures  partake  of 
the  character  of  a  negotiation,  or  extend  any  further 
than  a  conditional  agreement,  left  entirely  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  wants  of  the  whole  church,  as  represented 
to  the  appointing  powers.  And  no  genuine  Methodist 
preacher  or  layman,  who  has  mind  and  heart  enough 
to  appreciate  the  transcendent  economy  of  his  church, 
will  perceive  in  this  requirement  anything  else  than  a 
noble  disinterestedness,  worthy  of  good  men  and  a  good 
cause. 

5.  Fifthly,  let  us  resist  the  tendency,  lately  so  com- 


180  cnuRcn  government. 

mon,  to  divide  circuit  appointments  into  small  stations. 
Most  perjilexing  evils  arc  already  arising  from  this 
policy.  They  are  particularly  felt  by  the  episcopacy 
in  the  arrangement  of  the  annual  appointments. 

Many  of  these  petty  stations,  especially  in  the  east- 
ern sections  of  our  work,  are  too  small  to  afford  a  com- 
fortable subsistence  to  the  preacher.  Some  of  our 
conferences  are  groaning  under  the  intolerable  conse- 
quences, and  yet  proceed  on  inexorably  in  the  very 
policy  which  has  brought  this  calamitous  state  of  things 
upon  us — a  policy  which  perplexes  our  annual  appoint- 
ments ;  absorbs,  by  a  large  per  cent.,  an  undue  number 
of  ministerial  laborers  ;  keeps  these  laborers  on  a  stint- 
ed support,  under  which  many  of  them  are  annually 
sinking  with  discouragement ;  supersedes,  and  has  in- 
deed nearly  annihilated,  in  some  places,  the  local  min- 
istiy ;  is  crippling  many  of  our  societies  by  prematurely 
insulating  them,  and  thus  burdening  them  with  the 
expense  of  independent  support  when  they  are  capable 
only  of  a  combined  one ; — a  policy  which,  in  fine,  is 
adapted  only  to  extinguish  from  our  operations  the 
great  moral  energies  of  the  itinerancy,  and  spread 
through  our  work  a  sense  of  enfeeblement  and  dis- 
couragement. 

We  hesitate  not  to  express  here  to  the  church  our 
strong  conviction,  that  its  course,  in  this  respect,  is  one 
of  the  most  ominous  circumstances  in  its  present  his- 
tory ;  and  that  its  future  integrity  and  hope,  as  a  pe- 
culiar system  of  Christian  labors,  depend  on  an  early 
and  determined  resistance  to  the  downward  tendency. 

Let  us  not  be  misunderstood.  We  do  not  insist  that 
the  sections  of  our  work  thus  afflicted  should  return  to 
the  old  system  of  long  circuits,  requiring  four,  six,  or 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  181 

eight  weeks  to  compass  them,  nor  to  even  such,  how- 
ever much  smaller,  as  must  require  the  use  of  horses ; 
but  we  do  say  that  there  is  no  other  alternative  than 
that  many  of  our  societies  must  sink,  or,  by  a  limited 
circuit  system,  combine  for  mutual  support.  This  com- 
bination might  be  limited,  in  each  instance,  to  but  four 
or  five  appointments.  They  may  be  all  within  a  circle 
of  some  five  or  ten  miles  radius,  and  thus  have  little 
or  no  necessity  for  horses,  but  give  healthful  walks, 
and  a  much  more  comfortable  support  to  the  preach- 
ers, and  relief  from  insupportable  pressure  to  the  feeble 
appointments. 

Our  Wesleyan  brethren  in  England  present  us  with 
the  model.  Such  is  the  English  estimation  of  the 
moral  advantages  alone  of  the  itinerancy,  that  though, 
in  their  maturer  field,  the  pecuniary  expediency  of  it 
scarcely  exists,  yet  they  retain  the  plan,  as  we  have 
said,  in  its  full  vigor.  Even  the  rich  and  crowded 
societies  of  Liverpool,  London,  Manchester,  Birming- 
ham, &c.,  are  included  in  circuits,  and  the  preachers 
pass  from  one  to  the  other  by  incessant  changes.  A 
proposition  to  do  away  this  arrangement  would  be  con- 
sidered a  blow  aimed  at  the  foundation  of  the  economy 
of  Wesleyan  Methodism.  Yet  most  of  their  circuits 
do  not  require  horses,  or  long  absence  of  the  preacher 
from  his  local  residence.  The  esprit  du  corps  of  the 
ministry  and  people  is  kept  alive  by  this  course ;  the 
local  ministry  is  called  into  co-operation  with  the  itin- 
erant, and  a  motive  is  thus  given  them  to  study  and 
improve ;  new  or  feeble  societies  are  easily  supported, 
by  being  attached  to  efiicient  circuits ;  the  preachers, 
without  exception,  get  a  good  support,  and  a  conscious- 
ness of  competency  is  diffused  through  the  whole  body. 


182  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

This  is  what  we  want.  For  example,  it  is  often  the 
case  that  we  have  some  four  or  more  small  appoint- 
ments withm  a  few  miles  of  each  other,  each  having 
its  own  preacher,  but  all  so  feeble  that  no  one  of  their 
pastors  gets  a  competent  support,  and  no  one  of  the 
appointments  rises  above  pecuniary  embarrassments. 
Now,  if  these  four  societies  were  combined  into  a  cir- 
cuit, having  three  preachers  instead  of  four,  the  three 
preachers  could  (by  the  aid  of  a  local  preacher,  who 
would  visit  each  appointment  but  once  a  month,  or  even 
without  such  aid)  supply  each  with  about  its  present 
amount  of  preaching,  and  thus  save  the  present  ex- 
pense of  the  fourth  preacher,  to  be  distributed  among 
the  three.  We  give  this  as  a  very  moderate  example. 
In  much  of  our  territory  the  arrangement  could  be 
more  extensively  applied. 

Look,  for  a  moment,  at  what  would  be  some  of  its 
advantages  in  the  section  of  the  country  where  it  is 
most  needed.  From  the  latest  statistics  we  estimate 
that  there  are  at  least  five  hundred  and  fifty  societies 
in  the  New-England  conferences ;  for  safety,  say  five 
hundred.  Suppose,  now,  that  the  expense  of  one  in 
three  of  these  societies  could  be  saved  as  above,  it 
would  give  us  the  present  expenditure  of  more  than 
one  hundred  and  sixty-six  societies  thus  redeemed. 
If  we  take  this  expenditure  at  the  small  amount  of  one 
hundred  and  fifty  dollars  per  annum  for  each,  it  will 
give  us  twenty -four  thousand  nine  hundi'ed  dollars ! 
Nearly  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  now  uselessly,  nay, 
we  will  venture  to  say,  worse  than  uselessly  expended, 
would  be  saved,  to  be  added  to  the  support  of  our  now 
suffering  ministry.  We  say  this  amount  is  now  worse 
than  uselessly  expended,  for  we  verily  believe  that  the 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  183 

success  of  our  preacliers  on  this  itinerant  arrangement, 
and  with  the  comfort  of  this  better  support,  would  be 
greater  than  it  is  on  the  plan  which  now  involves  the 
twenty-five  thousand  dollars  of  additional  expenditure. 

But  this  is  not  all.  One  quarterly  conference  would 
suffice  for  each  of  these  small  circuits.  The  districts 
could  be  vastly  extended,  and  the  burden  of  the  pre- 
siding elder's  support  be  much  relieved  in  each  society. 
Besides  these  pecuniary  advantages,  the  consciousness 
of  inefficiency  which  results  from  our  pecuniary  em- 
barrassments would  pass  away  or  be  materially  relieved, 
the  families  of  the  preachers  would  be  rendered  com- 
fortable, and  the  preachers  themselves  be  saved  from 
many  anxieties  and  cares  which  now  interfere  with 
their  usefulness. 

It  is  an  important  question.  How  can  such  a  reform 
be  effected  ?  It  may  be  impracticable  in  respect  to  old 
appointments,  but  a  most  effectual  measure  would  be 
for  each  conference  to  resolve  to  receive  no  new  ap- 
pointment but  in  connection  with  one  or  more  old  ones, 
in  the  form  of  a  circuit,  unless  it  can  guaranty  an 
ample  support  to  the  preacher.  It  is  difficult,  indeed, 
to  reclaim  our  old  societies  from  their  false  position, 
but  the  measure  now  recommended  can  he  done.  Let 
the  conferences  firmly  resolve  it,  as  the  only  remedy 
of  the  insupportable  evils  which  are  depressing  portions 
of  our  work,  and  instruct  the  presiding  elders  to  regard 
it  as  unchangeable  as  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Per- 
sians. "We  may  gain  fewer  new  societies  than  we  now 
do,  but  we  will  gain  better  ones ;  and  sooner  or  later 
work  ourselves,  in  part  at  least,  out  of  the  quagmire 
of  difficulties,  "  the  slough  of  despond,"  into  which  the 
wretched  policy  of  multiplying  petty,  self-starving  sta- 


184  cnuRcn  government. 

tions  has  led  us.  We  soberly  believe  that  we  should 
be  much  "  better  off,"  and  do  more  real  good,  with  but 
three-fourths  our  present  number  of  stations,  vigorously 
sustained,  than  we  now  can  with  the  additional  one- 
fourth  hanging  as  dead  weights  on  our  machinery,  and 
abstracting  away  the  energies  of  the  others. 

If  this  suggestion  were  alone  adopted,  it  would  pui 
a  stop  at  once  to  the  growth  of  the  evil.  Our  present 
feeble  societies,  or  many  of  them,  if  not  all,  could,  m 
the  course  of  years,  work  their  way  up  to  a  position  of 
competency ;  and  if  no  more  incompetent  ones  are  add- 
ed, we  may  some  time  or  other,  however  distant,  rise 
above  our  present  embarrassments.  Our  Wesleyan 
brethren  adopted,  long  ago,  this  policy,  and  they  owe 
to  it  much  of  their  present  efficiency. 

What  is  our  present  course  ?  It  is  about  this.  A 
preacher  occasionally  visits  a  neighboring  village,  and 
is  instrumental  in  the  conversion  of  a  few  individuals, 
or  the  outer  scintillations  of  a  revival  reach  the  place, 
or  perhaps  a  few  members  remove  to  it.  A  class  is 
formed.  The  pastor  supplies  them  occasionally  with 
preaching.  A  few  of  their  neighbors  unite  with  them, 
and  a  hall  or  school-house  is  procured,  at  an  annual 
expense,  for  meetings.  The  neighboring  stationed 
preachers  and  local  preachers  ai'e  called  upon  to  sup- 
ply them  till  conference.  As  the  conference  approaches 
they  grow  sanguine.  They  count  their  friends  in  the 
little  community,  project  a  chapel  to  be  built  in  the 
course  of  a  year  or  so,  and  straightway  ask  the  presid- 
ing elder  for  a  preacher  from  the  next  conference! 
The  elder,  backed  by  no  such  rule  of  conference  as 
we  have  recommended,  must  either  concur,  or  for- 
feit their  favor.    The  preacher  arrives.     He  finds 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  185 

some  twenty  or  thirty  members,  probably.  He  is 
placed,  with  his  young  wife,  recently,  it  may  be,  from 
her  comfortable,  parental  home,  in  a  couple  of  cham- 
bers. A  few  dollars  come  in  quarterly,  upon  which 
they  make  out  to  subsist — to  "scrape  along,"  as  the 
saying  is.  Perhaps  some  interest  takes  place  in  the 
congregation — some  souls  are  converted.  The  excite- 
ment brings  in,  for  a  time,  a  larger  congregation  than 
usual.  And  now  some  warm-hearted  brother  recalls 
the  projected  chapel.  All  are  sanguine.  The  lot  is 
purchased,  and  the  building  rises,  is  finished,  and  dedi- 
cated with  singing  and  shouting.  But  what  next? 
Why,  a  large  debt,  eating  away  its  very  foundations ; 
calls,  incessant  calls  for  money ;  the  congregation  dis- 
couraged, and  falling  away ;  the  preacher  is  sent  begging 
among  the  other  churches,  most  of  them  groaning  un- 
der the  same  failures,  and  appears  at  the  next  confer- 
ence, worn  with  care,  and  it  may  be  something  worse, 
imploring  a  removal  to  an  appointment  where  his  suf- 
fering family  can  find  relief. 

Sheer  absurdity,  this !  How  could  such  a  handful 
of  poor  brethren,  however  zealous,  support  a  preacher, 
pay  the  presiding  elder,  build  a  church,  and  gather  a 
congregation,  amidst  the  competition  and  contingencies 
of  these  times !  How  much  better  for  the  ministry, 
and  for  themselves,  if  they  could  be  attached  to  some 
neighboring  station,  contributing  to  it  their  proportion 
of  support,  and  receiving  from  its  regular  pastor  occa- 
sional preaching,  and  at  other  times  the  labors  of  a 
local  preacher,  till  time  and  growth  should  enable  them 
to  stand  alone  vigorously  and  respectably ! 

The  arrangement  we  recommend  would  tend  to 
preserve  the  sentiment  of  unity  among  the  societies. 


186  cnuRCn  government. 

By  assembling  together,  and  doing  their  respective 
business  as  a  common  rcsponsibihty,  their  several  in- 
terests as  societies  become  identified,  in  their  sympa- 
thies, at  least ;  and  that  pure  old  homebred  feeling  which 
once  made  Mctliodists  regard  all  their  churches  as  but 
one  family  is  brought  again  into  play.  This  common 
sympathy  is  worth  much.  It  is  a  most  precious  ele- 
ment in  the  public  sentiment  of  any  organization,  and 
it  is  not  without  its  practical  advantages  in  the  mutual 
encouragement  and  mutual  aid  which  it  often  j^rompts. 

This  combination  of  appointments  brings  together  a 
greater  amount  of  experience  and  wisdom  than  can  be 
usually  assembled  in  the  quarterly  conference  of  a  sin- 
gle appomtment.  Two  good  old  maxims  say,  that  in 
"•union  there  is  strength,"  and  "in  the  multitude  of 
counselors  there  is  wisdom."  Often  the  local  affairs 
of  a  society  become  perplexed  by  misunderstandings 
and  parties  among  its  members.  These  influences  go 
into  the  quarterly  conferences,  and  may  defy  all  sober 
or  impartial  proceedings.  How  much  safer  would  it 
be,  in  such  instances,  to  combine  with  neighboring 
and  disinterested  charges,  the  cooler  and  unbiased 
judgment  of  which  might  control  such  party  aberra- 
tion ! 

This  advantage  would  especially  be  found  in  cases 
of  trial.  It  sometimes  happens  that  local  excitement 
against  a  defendant  renders  an  impartial  trial  almost 
impracticable,  even  when  appealed  to  the  quarterly 
conference ;  and  doubtless  many  a  good  man  has  gone 
to  his  grave,  feeling,  through  his  whole  life,  the  cruel 
injustice  of  such  partial  proceedings.  On  the  present 
plan  such  cases  are,  to  a  considerable  extent,  put  be- 
yond local  prejudices,  by  being  subject  to  the  examin- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  187 

ation  and  decision  of  all  the  societies  united  in  the 
quarterly  conference. 

This  arrangement,  then,  has  its  advantages  as  well 
as  disadvantages.  By  reviving  the  sentiment  of  our 
mutual  relations,  it  will  tend  to  fit  us  for  more  thorough 
co-operation  in  all  our  common  interests.  Its  incon- 
veniences we  do  not  consider  serious.  It  is  sometimes 
asked,  what  interest  the  representatives  of  the  different 
societies  can  have  in  each  other's  separate  business? 
"WHiat  Methodist  can  hear  such  a  question  without  af- 
fliction and  mortification  ?  We  never  hear  it  without 
recalling  those  good  days  of  the  universal  trial  and  uni- 
versal triumph  of  Methodism,  when  no  parish  limits, 
no  circuit  bounds,  no  district,  or  even  conference  lines, 
were  sufficient  to  demark  the  common  feeling  of  suffer- 
ing, and  yet  of  exulting  victory,  which  characterized 
the  connection.  Away  with  the  petty  locahsms  of 
these  times !  Let  us  feel  that  we  are  one  in  the  Lord ; 
that  our  great  work  is  not  to  rear  up  local  temples, 
which,  like  the  shell  of  the  oyster,  are  to  incrust  and 
bind  within  their  limits  our  whole  ecclesiastical  being, 
but  that  it  is  to  spread  holiness  over  the  land  and  the 
world ;  and  that  every  local  pulsation  is  but  the  beat- 
ing of  the  great  common  heart.  Let  the  afflictions  of 
our  brethren  everywhere  be  considered  our  afflictions, 
and  their  success  ours. 


188  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

IMPORTANCE  OP  THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP. 

It  represents  the  unity  of  our  societies — Combines  many  effec- 
tive means  of  usefulness — Necessary  to  the  annual  arrangement 
of  the  appointments — Cannot  be  superseded  by  bishops  or  dis- 
trict chairman. 

One  of  the  most  important  offices  of  our  economy 
is  that  of  the  presiding  elder.  We  have  no  hesitancy 
|in  saying  that  no  other  function  of  the  system — not 
\excepting  the  episcopacy  itself — is  capable  of  greater 
i  usefulness,  or  could  not  be  sacrificed  with  less  peril. 
*The  episcopacy  could  not  possibly  proceed  without  it ; 
but  the  presiding  eldership  might  possibly  operate  the 
system  without  the  episcopacy,  though  with  clumsy 
inefficiency — the  episcopacy  exerts  great  and  salutary 
influence  through  the  church  by  its  itinerant  preaching 
and  counsels ;  but  the  influence  of  the  presiding  elder- 
ship is  on  a  scale  more  effi^ctive,  because  more  syste- 
matic. Yet  is  there  a  disposition  often  shown  to 
question  its  utility.  Such  misgivings  must  be  con- 
fined, however,  to  those  who  have  not  examined  its 
important  relations  to  the  whole  economy  of  the 
church. 

Let  us  notice  some  of  them. 

1.  It  is  important  as  a  representative  of  the  nnity  of 
our  work — no  unimportant  advantage  in  these  days, 
when  our  appointments  are  becoming  so  much  insu- 
lated from  each  other,  and  individualized  in  their 
spirit.  The  presiding  elder  is  still  a  link  of  relation- 
ship between  them.     He  belongs  to  them  all  through- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  189 

out  his  district ;  and  his  incessant  journeys  from  one 
to  another  keeps  alive  the  sense  of  a  common  interest 
and  a  common  sympathy.  We  have  repeatedly  re- 
ferred to  the  value  of  this  sentiment  j  should  it  ever 
be  extinguished,  we  shall  learn  its  importance. 

2.  The  presiding  eldership  is  a  comUnation  of  the 
most  effective  offcial  functions.  Its  incumbent  is  a 
traveling  evangelist,  and  travels  on  the  largest  definite 
scale.  His  preaching  among  the  churches  of  his  dis- 
trict is  not  casual,  or  by  sufferance,  but  regular  and 
authoritative,  an  official  duty.  What,  now,  we  ask, 
might  not  be  the  achievements  of  a  mighty  man  of 
God  in  such  a  sphere?  How  might  he  go  from 
church  to  church  sounding  the  evangelic  trumpet, 
advocating  the  great  interests  of  the  age,  and  lead- 
ing on  the  subordinate  ministry  from,  victory  to 
victory !  Assuredly,  if  such  a  function  is  not  use-  [/ 
ful,  the  fault  must  be  more  in  the  officer  than  in  II 
the  office. 

Further :  he  has  official  oversight  "  of  all  the  elders 
and  deacons,  traveling  and  local  preachers,  and  ex- 
horters"  on  his  district,  to  give  them  counsel  respect- 
ing their  ministerial  conduct,  direct  their  studies  and 
labors,  reprove  their  faults,  and  adjust  their  differ- 
ences. Assuredly,  a  man  of  capacity  and  energy  may 
find  here  an  enviable  field  of  usefulness ;  his  district 
may  be  a  line  of  battle,  whose  whole  movement  is  at 
his  command.  How  many  recruits  may  he  rally  into 
the  ministerial  corps !  how  may  he  impress  the  apos- 
tolic character  on  the  youthful  evangelists  under  his 
guidance!  how  cheer  them  in  the  hour  of  despond- 
ence, inspirit  them  in  the  day  of  declension  or  indo- 
lence, and  guard  them  in  the  time  of  excitement  and 


190  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

revival !  Such  an  ofTice  might  certainly  befit  an 
apostle. 

Again :  he  haB  charge  of  the  administration  of  dis- 
cipline throiTp;hout  his  district.  He  is  "to  take  care 
that  every  part  of  our  discipline  be  enforced."  He 
is  to  preside  at  the  trials  of  local  preachers,  and  in  the 
court  of  appeals.  His  office  supposes  him  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  discipline  of  the  church ;  many  of 
the  preachers  on  stations  and  circuits  may,  from  their 
youth  or  habits,  be  deficient  in  this  importimt  know- 
ledge. A  defect  in  the  administration  of  discipline, 
especially  in  cases  of  trial  or  dispute  among  brethren, 
may  devastate  a  whole  church.  How  important,  then, 
is  that  office  which  extends  its  supervision  over  all 
such  cases,  which  presents  at  the  altar  of  every 
church,  in  cases  of  exigency,  the  mature  experience 
and  skill  of  sanctified  age,  to  advise  and  moderate 
parties,  or,  if  need  be,  adjudicate  their  appeals !  How 
much  discord  and  ruin  may  it  not  prevent ! 

"  By  keeping,"  says  a  venerable  authority,  "a  watch- 
ful eye  over  all  the  traveling  and  local  preachers  in 
the  district,  administering  advice  and  admonition  as 
occasion  may  require,  a  presiding  elder  may  restrain 
irregularities  in  their  early  stages;  correct  small 
offenses  before  they  ripen  into  evils  which  would  dis- 
grace the  church,  and  injure  the  cause ;  and  thereby 
prevent  many  of  the  charges  and  trials  which  otherwise 
would  fall  upon  individuals  to  their  injury,  if  not  their 
ultimate  ruin." — Hedding  on  Discipline,  pp.  30,  31. 

But  still  further :  he  presides  in  the  quarterly  con- 
ferences, and  thus  has  a  periodical  examination  of  all 
the  financial  and  other  interests  of  the  charge.  Its 
official  management,  its  fiscal  difficulties,  its  pastor, 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  191 

local  preachers,  extorters,  class-leaders,  and  stewards, 
its  past  success,  and  its  means  for  the  future,  all  come 
under  his  review  and  influence  on  these  occasions. 
Not  only  at  these  regular  periods,  but  at  all  times  and 
places  on  his  district,  can  he  officially  interpose  for 
the  welfare  of  the  church.     Does  a  difficulty  arisen 
between  the   preacher  and  people?      The  presiding 
elder  steps  in  to  remove  it.     Does  a  schism  occur,/ 
threatening  the  quiet  or  the  existence  of  the  church  ? 
He  is  the  official  mediator  between  the  parties.     Does  -- 
the  pastor  fail  in  health  or  apostatize  ?     He  provides 
a  substitute.    Does  a  difficult  case  of  discipline  occur?  ' 
He  comes  as  adviser  or  judge  of  appeals.     Is  a  new  < 
church  projected  ?     He  counsels  in  regard  to  its  exe- 
cution, its  deed,  and  its  means.     Do  young  men  of  ^ 
talent  appear  to  be  called  to  the  ministry  of  the  word? 
He  examines  them,  directs  their  preparation,  and  as- 
signs them  fields.     Is  not  this  a  sphere  for  the  largest  "*- 
ability  and  usefulness?     And  when  it  is  considered 
that  a  great  proportion  of  our  ministry  is  composed  of 
young  men,  and  that  it  receives  little,  if  any,  training 
before  the  period  of  actual  service,  such  an  official 
oversight  becomes  doubly  important. 

3.  The  presiding  eldershjp  is  a  necessary  auxiliary 
to  the  episcopacy  in  making  the  annual  appointments. 
This  is  its  highest  necessity.  We  have  shown  the 
impossibility  of  a  successful  itinerancy  based  on  annual 
negotiations  between  preachers  and  people,  and  its 
equal  impossibility  in  the  hands  of  a  committee  of 
both.  A  committee  specially  devoted  to  the  inspec- 
tion of  the  ministry  and  the  churches,  traveling  among 
them  to  ascertain  their  capabilities  and  necessities,  is 
the  only  secure  mode  of  managing  this  critical  ma- 


192  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

chinery.     Such  a  committee  are  our  bishops  and  pre- 

i siding  ciders.  The  people,  especitdlj,  should  uphold 
the  office  as  essential  to  their  interests  in  the  arrangc- 
\ment  of  the  appointments.  How  could  the  bishops 
possibly  make  these  appointments  with  proper  dis- 
crimination, unaided  by  such  helps  ?  The  former  are 
few  in  number,  and  travel  through  the  whole  nation  ; 
how  can  they  know  the  qualifications  of  all  the 
preachers,  the  cu*cumstances  of  their  famiUes,  and 
the  wants  of  all  the  churches  ? 

Would  you  supersede  the  presiding  elder  by  multi- 
plying  the  bishops?  In  order  to  do  it  adequately, 
you  must  have  about  as  many  of  the  latter  as  of  the 
former ;  and,  therefore,  as  much,  if  not  more,  expense 
than  you  now  have.  What  advantage,  then,  could 
there  be  in  the  change  ?  It  would  be  about  as  well 
to  change  merely  the  name  of  the  presiding  elders, 
and  call  them  bishops. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  this  ofTicc  might  be 
superseded  by  that  of  *"•  district  chairman."  AYe  need 
only  give,  in  reply,  the  opinion  of  a  good  judge. 
Bishop  Hedding  remarks :  "  An  opinion  has  been 
frequently  offered,  of  late,  that  the  office  of  presiding 
elder  might  be  dispensed  with ;  or  that  we  might  pro- 
fitably substitute  for  it  that  of  '  chairman  of  the  dis- 
trict,' who  should  also  be  preacher  in  charge  in  a 
circuit  or  station.  But  this  change  would  be  liable 
to  many  objections  and  difficulties.  In  most  parts  of 
the  work,  the  whole  time  of  the  presiding  elder  is 
needed  to  perform  the  duties  required  of  him.  And 
where  a  district  consists  mostly  of  stations,  there  is 
need  of  a  presiding  elder  being  present  with  the 
preachers  and  people  more  of  the  time  than  a  stationed 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  193 

preacher  possibly  could  be,  to  enable  him  Ho  set  in 
order  the  things  that  are  wanting,'  and  to  prepare  him 
to  give  such  representations  of  the  wants  of  the  people, 
and  of  the  gifts  and  qualifications  of  the  preachers,  as 
are  absolutely  necessary  at  the  conference  to  enable 
those  who  fix  the  appointments  of  the  preachers  to 
perform  that  difficult  part  of  our  work  as  it  should  be 
done.  But  one  says,  'Make  the  districts  ^smaller,* 
Then  more  'chairmen'  would  be  necessary;  and, 
upon  the  whole,  as  much  time,  traveling,  and  expense 
required  as  are  necessary  under  the  present  system ; 
for  the  district  would  have  to  pay  the  'chairman' 
proportionally  for  the  time  he  employs  in  the  district, 
as  well  as  for  his  traveling  expenses.  Besides,  such 
a  station  as  would  be  suitable  for  a  '  chairman,'  would 
require  all  his  time  and  labor,  and,  between  the  two 
charges,  he  would  be  liable,  in  part  at  least,  to  neglect 
both.  Finally,  I  have  seen  that  mode  tried  in  several 
instances,  and  I  never  knew  it  work  well.  The  peo- 
ple in  the  station  would  say,  '  Half  the  service  of  a 
preacher  is  not  sufficient  for  us ;'  and  the  district  would 
reply,  'Half  the  service  of  a  presiding  elder  is  not 
sufficient  for  us.' " — Hedding  on  Disciplinej  p.  37. 

Let  us  guard,  then,  against  innovation  in  so  import- 
ant a  part  of  our  machinery.     If  the  time  may  come 
when  circumstances  will  admit  its  modification,  most 
clearly  that  time  has  not  yet  arrived. 
9 


194  CnURCU  GOVERNMENT. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

METHODISM  A   SPECIAL   SYSTEM. 

Special  in  its  origin — In  its  agents — In  its  measures — In  its 
spirit — Practical  importance  of  this  view  of  it. 

It  is  important  to  our  continued  prosperity  that  we 
bear  in  mind  the  special  charaoter  of  our  mission  as  a 
Christian  sect.  Our  system  is  an  onerous  one,  and 
can  be  borne  only  from  this  conviction. 

Methodism  is  a  special  system,  and  every  Methodist 
ought  to  he  a  special  Christian.     Its  whole  history 
and  character   are   impressed  with  the  marks  of  a 
special  design.     It  originated  at  a  special  time,  a 
period  in  which  Dr.  Watts  declared  that  "religion 
was  dying  in  the  world;"  and  when  Butler  assures 
us  that  Christianity  was  "  treated  as  if  it  had  at  length  5 
been  discovered  to  be  fictitious."     «  Just  at  the  time,"  | 
says  Wesley,  "  when  we  wanted  little  of  filling  up  the ) 
measure  of  our  iniquities,  did  two  or  three  clergymen ) 
of  the  Church  of  England  begin  vehemently  to  call] 
sinners  to  repentance."     Few  periods  in  the  history] 
of  the  English  Church  were  darker.     Natural  religion 
had  become  the  substance  of  preaching;   Arianism 
and  Socinianism,  under  the  influence  of  such  men  as 
Priestley,  Whiston,  and  Dr.  S.  Clark,  were  current 
among  the  learned ;  the  most  giant  advocates  of  skep- 
ticism England  has  produced — Hobbes,  Bolingbroke, 
Hume,   and    Gibbon — were   appearing,   or   had  just 
appeared,  in   the   conflict  with   Christianity;   while, 
across  the  channel,  the  strongholds  of  the  Reforma- 
tion were  yielding  to  a  Deistical  theology;  and  the 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  195 

French  philosophers  were  spreading  moral  contagiont 
through  Europe.  At  this  dark  period  did  God  raise; 
up  Wesley,  Whiteiield,  and  their  co-laborers,  and[ 
thrust  them  out,  to  revive  the  elementary  doctrines  i 
of  Christianity,  and  exemplify  again  the  apostolic} 
spu'it  and  labors. 

Not  only  did^itaris^  oio.  special  time^_  but  the  men 
who  '^^iZ2!^^l!^i4.'^iJi^^^^^£^^^LP^.^i  We  feel  that  we 
do  not  hazard  much  when  we  say  that,  in  the  group 
of  its  earliest  characters,  we  meet  with  some  who 
were  the  most  remarkable  in  their  respective  spheres 
that  have  appeared  since  the  foundation  of  Christian- 
ity— Wesley,  one  of  the  g^reatest  of  ecclesjasticaljegis- 
lators ;  Whitefield,  the  most  esitraordinary  pulpit 
orator;  Charles  Wesley,  the  best. of  sacred  poets; 
Fletcher,  one  of  the  most^^rofoundhQolemi^ ;  Coke, 
the  greatest  leader  jof  modern  Asbury,  the 

most  laborious   of  bishops;   and  two  commentators^ 
Clarke  and  Benson,  one  among  the  most  learned,  and 
the   other  among   the   best   of  j)ractical   expositors. 
Who  can  doubt  the  evidence  of  divine  Providence 
displayed    in   the   co-existence   and   co-operation  of 
these  remarkable  men  ?     While  Wesley  was  employ-] 
ing  his  wonderful  powers  in  constructing  and  esta-{ 
blishing  the  economy  of  Methodism,  Whitefield  wasl^ 
rousing  for  it  the  popular  sympathies  by  his  eloquence,  \ 
and  preparing  especially  other  sects  for  the  influence  / 
which  time  has  shown  it  was  destined  to  exert  upon  | 
them ;  Charles  Wesley  was  imbodying  its  tenets  and  j 
spirit  in  verse,  and  preparing  for  its  future  hundreds  { 
of  thousands  an  unrivaled  psalmody ;    Fletcher  was  | 
defending,  with  a  battle-ax,  which  nothing  could  with-  ( 
stand,  its  theology,  and  vindicating  it  as  much  by  his  ! 


106  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

'spirit  as  his  logic ;  Coke  was  developing  its  plans  of 
foreign  conquest ;  Asbuiy,  the  great  pioneer  of  Ame- 
rican revivals,  was  applying  its  energies  to  the  new 
circumstances  of  this  hemisphere ;    and  Benson  and 

i  Clarke  followed,  fortifying  it  firmly  on  the  foundation 
of  the  Scriptures.  These  were  the  leaders ;  but  the 
subordinate  instruments  were  likewise  marked  by 
strong  cliaractei-i,^tic.-,  di-^tinguishing  them  as  the  men 
raised  up  by  Gk)d  for  an  extraordinary  purpose. 

The  mmsures  of  Methodism  bear  the  same  special 
chamcter.  Dr.  Chalmers  has  characterized  it  as 
"  Christianity  in  earnest."  Effect,  and  immediate 
h  effect,  is  its  uniform  intent.  "Wesley  and  his  coad- 
jutors preached  the  common  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
but  distinguished  them  more_clearly,  and  emphasized 
them  more  strqn^y,  than  others ;  insomuch  that  they 
struck  the  public  attention  as  new  truths.  They  were 
not  content  with  the  limits  of  church  edifices,  but  be- 
took themselves  to  the  open  air.  Stationary  labors 
would  not  satisfy  their  zeal;  but  they  went  up  and 
down  the  land  preaching  by  night  and  by  day ;  they 
"  ran  to  and  fro,  and  knowledge  increased."  Method- 
ism could  not  delay  its  great  designs  by  waiting  for  a 
ministry  qualified  by  the  old  course  of  preparatoiy 
education,  but  revived  the  apostolic  example  of  a  lay 
ministry.  It  could  not  allow  these  the  limited  labors 
of  a  single  charge ;  but,  hastening  them  from  place  to 
place,  it  revived  the  means  by  which  the  apostolic 
ministry  conquered  the  world — an  itinerant  ministry, 
Not  content  with  its  itinerant  laborers,  it  called  into 
use  its  less  available  energies,  by  establishing  the  new 
departments  of  local  preachers,  exhorters,  and  leaders. 
While  it  retained  the  more  formal  means  of  grace,  it 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  197 

either  introduced  or  adopted  the  class-meeting,  the 
hand-meeting,  the  prayer-meeting,  the  camp-meeting, 
the  love-feast,  and  the  ivatch-night.  Thus  it  studied 
to  apply  every  energy,  and  to  apply  it  in  the  most 
productive  manner.  The  effective  system  of  American 
Methodism  exemplifies  well  this,  its  practical  energy. 
It  is  a  vast  and  powerful  machinery.  Our  general 
conferences,  annual  conferences,  quarterly  conferences, 
leaders'-meetings,  and  class-meetings;  our  gradations 
of  labor — bishops,  presiding  elders,  circuit  preachers, 
exhorters,  and  leaders — form  a  series  of  instrumen- 
talities unequaled  in  the  economy  of  any  other  Pro- 
testant denomination. 

Not  only  has  it  been  thus  special  in  the  circum- 
stances of  its  origin,  in  its  characters  and  measures, 
but  also  in  its  spirit.  'V\Tiat  candid  observer,  however 
he  may  question  some  of  its  peculiarities,  will  deny 
that  a  more  than  common  share  of  the  divine  influence 
has  been  vouchsafed  to  it,  and  that  its  system  has  been 
extraordinarily  productive  ?  "We  assert  it,  not  boast- 
fully, though  gratefully ;  and,  as  an  unquestionable  fact 
of  its  history — a  fact  which  ought  to  be  particularly 
regarded,  if  we  would  appreciate  the  system  and 
mission  which  God  has  appointed  us.  How  is  it 
otherwise  that  such  general  and  constant  revivals 
have  prevailed  under  it;  that  so  many  thousands 
have  been  rescued  by  it  from  the  lowest  conditions 
of  vice;  that  such  multitudes  have  passed  from 
within  its  pale  joyfully  to  the  church  triumphant; 
and  that  a  number,  exceeding  by  one-third  the  next 
largest  sect  in  the  land,  are  still  marching  under 
its  banners  to  the  same  heavenly  Jerusalem? — 
This    special    success    is    the    result    of   a    special 


198  cnuRcn  government. 

energy;    and    all    men,   -vvhosc   eyes    are    open,   be- 
hold it. 

Mctliod]sm_i^ essentially  vital  and  operative :  it 
must  ever  be  so :  it  is  an  absolute  necessity  of  its 
system.  And  herein  we  observe  a  peculiarity  which 
ought  to  strike  most  impressively  its  friends,  as  guar- 
antying, with  the  divine  blessing,  its  perpetual  in- 
tegrity and  prevalence.  ^^1.  other  sectariari.Jbrms^ 
Christi9JiityJbave_declni§d.  Congregationalism,  with 
its  simple  rites,  became  a  lifeless  system  of  reli- 
gious common-places.  Protestant  Episcopalianism 
degenerated  into  a  spiritless  ritual.  All  the  dis- 
tinctive and  essential  traits  of  each  have  co-existed 
with  a  general  absence  of  vital  religion.  The  state 
of  the  English  Church  when  Methodism  began  was 
an  example  of  the  latter ;  the  state  of  the  New-Eng- 
land church  before  Edwards,  of  the  former.  B^jijve 
can  hardly  conceive  pf  Methodism  In  pucli  a  state. 
While  these  sects  have  lost  their  vitality,  Avithout 
losing  any  of  their  distinctive  traits,  Methodism  abso- 
lutely cannot  tints  decline  zvithout  the  extinction  of  all 
that  is  distinctively  Methodistic  in  its  system.  It  seems 
in  this  view  a  final  form  of  Christianity — a  millennial 
system.  How  can  we  conceive  of  a  lifeless  laity  im-  ^ 
[bodied  in  classes,  and  meeting  weekly  to  converse  of 
\  Christian  experience  ?  Or  of  a  dead  ministry  leading  Jr 
•the  pilgrim  life  of  itinerants?  Or  of  such  a  laity 
hearing,  and  such  a  ministry  preaching,  the  distinctive  ^^ 
doctrines  of  Methodism — distinguishable  conversion, 
^the  loitness  of  the  Spirit,  and  Christian  perfection  ? 
Herein,  then,  is  Metliodism  unique :  it  cannot,  like 
other  sects,  decline  seriously,  and  retain  its  distinctive 
character :  it  can  only  fall  by  a  revolution  of  its  whole 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  199 

practical  system :  it  must  lose  its  identity,  and  be  no 
longer  Methodism.  We  do  not  assert  its  infallibility, 
but  its  singular  security.  It  may  experience  such  a 
revolution;  but  the  impediments  and  the  improba- 
bilities are  extraordinary. 

In  aU  these  respects  Methodism  is  marked  with  a 
special  character  and  a  special  purpose.  Wesley  said 
that  its  purpose  was  to  "spread  holiness  over  the 
land ;"  but  it  is  greater ;  it  is  to  "  spread  holiness  over 
the  world."  It  was  raised  up  not  merely  to  resuscitate 
the  English  Church,  but  to  affect  all  Protestant  Chris- 
tendom, either  by  its  direct  influence  or  by  its  example. 
It  is  a  missionary  church  in  its  plans,  a  revival  church 
in  its  spirit;  and  such  it  promises  to  be  until  the 
world  is  redeemed,  if  we  but  preserve  its  peculiarities. 

We  repeat,  it  is  important  that  we  bear  in  mind 
this  special  character  of  our  cause. 

First,  the  idea  of  our  special  character  will  lead  us 
to  hear  patiently  the  special  inconveniences  of  our  sys- 
tem. The  greatest  of  these,  to  both  people  and  preach- 
ers, arise  from  our  itinerancy ;  and  one  of  the  most 
serious  objections  under  which  our  polity  suffers  is 
brought  against  the  appointing  poiver,  upon  which  the 
itinerancy  is  based ;  yet  this  itinerancy,  with  its  epis- 
copal basis,  is  the  most  indispensable  feature  of  our 
economy.  Abolish  it,  and  you  cut  the  locks  from  your 
young  giant.  Besides  its  moral  effect  upon  the  minis- 
try, by  reminding  them  that  here  they  have  no  abiding 
city ;  and  upon  the  people,  by  the  constant  distribution 
of  our  various  talents;  it  is  necessary  to  the  support  of 
a  large  portion  of  our  appointments.  Many  of  these 
do  not  afford  a  full  support  to  the  preacher,  and  thus 
it  must  be  while  there  is  a  frontier  to  our  work ;  and 


200  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

such  a  frontier  there  must  be  till  the  world  is  evange- 
lized. Some  of  them  require  actual  suffering.  Me- 
thodist preachers  are  of  like  passions  with  other  men. 
They  know  it,  and  therefore  have  they  adopted  a  sys- 
tem which,  by  its  authoritativeness,  will  not  allow  of 
the  indulgences  and  evasions  of  selfishness,  and,  by  the 
frequent  changes  which  it  effects,  distributes  and  re- 
lieves the  inconveniences  which  it  imposes.  What 
would  become  of  these  indigent  appointments  if  the 
appointing  power  were  vested  in  the  whole  conference, 
or  a  committee  of  its  appointment,  subject  to  an  appeal 
to  the  conference?  AYlio  would  appoint  himself  to 
such  posts?  Who  would  not  feel  disposed  to  escape, 
by  all  possible  means,  the  embarrassments  and  suffer- 
ings which  most  of  our  preachers  now  endure  ?  Some 
there  might  be,  who,  brave  of  heart,  would  court  perils, 
and  exult  in  the  brunt  of  the  battle ;  but  many,  without 
doubt,  would  seek  the  securer  posts.  We  have  ex- 
pressed the  conviction  that  one-third  of  all  our  appoint- 
ments would  be  left  unsupplied  in  a  few  years  after 
such  a  revolution  in  our  ecclesiastical  polity.  We  do 
not  depreciate  our  preachers  by  this  remark.  It  is 
based  on  a  correct  knowledge  of  human  nature — all 
w^ho  understand  human  nature  will  accede  to  it.  Their 
work  is  militant.  Like  men  in  battle,  they  know  they 
must  suffer — must  stand  amidst  mortifications  and  per- 
ils which  are  rarely  matters  of  voluntary  choice ;  and 
therefore,  like  soldiers  in  the  emergencies  of  war,  they 
pledge  themselves  to  obey  their  leaders ;  but  those 
leaders  are  of  their  own  constitution,  and  the  measure 
of  obedience  is  of  their  own  devising.  Selecting  the 
fathers  of  the  ministry  for  their  superintendents,  they 
say  unto  them,  "  Here  we  have  no  abiding  city,"  and, 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  201 

"though  bonds  and  afflictions  await  us,  yet  none  of 
these  things  move  us ;  neither  count  we  our  lives  deai- 
unto  us,  so  that  we  might  finish  our  course  with  joy, 
and  the  ministry  Avhich  we  have  received  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  to  testify  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God :"  point 
us,  therefore,  to  the  positions  most  suitable  for  us.  Let 
them  be  easy  or  perilous,  secure  or  dangerous,  "  here 
are  we,  send  us."  This  is  the  language  of  a  genuine 
Methodist  preacher;  and  this  is  not  the  language  of 
servility,  but  of  a  heroic  spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  produced, 
under  God,  by  that  truly  militant  system  which  some, 
indisposed  to  its  labors  or  impatient  of  its  authority, 
would  abolish.  Let  it  be  abolished,  and  the  permanent 
triumphs  of  Methodism  cease — our  ministry  wiU  be- 
come like  other  ministries.  What  other  preachers  go, 
or  would  go,  where  Methodist  preachers  go?  With 
all  their  poverty  and  illiteracy,  are  they  not  the  front 
Hne  of  the  American  ministry  on  the  borders  of  civil- 
ization? and  do  they  not,  in  our  older  communities, 
perform  labors  and  sustain  burdens  which  few,  if  any, 
of  the  clergy  of  other  sects  do  ?  And  how,  but  by  the 
peculiarity  of  their  system?  Let  it  not  be  objected 
that  the  English  Methodist  preachers  are  subject  to  no 
such  absolute  control.  If  it  were  true,  yet  there  is  no 
analogy  between  the  cases.  There  is  no  English 
preacher  who  does  not  get  a  comfortable  support,  either 
from  his  people  or  the  funds  of  the  conference.  The 
EngUsh  Conference  receives  no  appointment  except  as 
a  mission,  unless  it  can  support  a  preacher.  The  most 
essential  differences  between  the  ecclesiastical  organ- 
ization of  the  Wesley ans  and  ourselves  are :  1.  That 
the  highest  officer  of  the  former  is  elected  annually, 
while  those  of  the  latter  are  perpetual.  Mr.  Newfon 
9* 


202  CUURCU   GOVERNMENT. 

remarked,  on  tliis  subject,  at  our  General  Conference, 
that  their  "president  never  dies."  If  the  officer  is 
clianged,  yet  the  office  is  perpetual ;  and  he,  as  well  as 
Dr.  Fisk,  lias  testified  that  the  power  of  the  Wcsleyan 
l)resident  is  greater  than  that  of  the  American  bishop. 
2.  The  appointments  of  the  English  preachers  are  made 
by  a  committee.  This  is  virtually  the  case  in  the 
American  church,  the  presiding  elders  being,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  such  a  committee,  in  conjunction 
with  the  bishop.  And,  for  our  own  part,  we  would 
rather  have  such  a  committee,  composed  of  men  who, 
from  their  official  position,  can  have  a  knowledge  of 
the  general  demands  of  the  work,  and  are  not  liable  to 
the  interferences  of  personal  interest,  than  one  com- 
posed of  men  who  have  a  common  place  with  ourselves 
in  tlie  list  of  appointments.  The  English  preachers 
were  subject  to  an  individual  and  absolute  appointing 
power  until  about  the  time  in  which  their  fiscal  system 
allowed  of  a  modification ;  and  the  appointments  of  its 
committee  are  generally  *as  inexorable  as  those  of  our 
committee  of  presiding  elders  and  bishops.  Indeed,  a 
large  majority  of  Wesleyan  preachers  have  no  voice 
whatever  in  the  proceedings  of  their  conference.  But 
one  hundred  can  act  at  all.,  as  instituted  by  Wesley. 

We  believe  Methodist  preachers  are  almost  univer- 
sally and  immovably  attached  to  their  present  govern- 
ment. A  few  aspiring  or  disappointed  spirits  may 
)-evolt;  a  few  more  of  better  integrity  may,  for  want 
of  a  close  investigation  of  its  advantages,  wish  for  a 
change  ;  but  the  latter  generally  come  out  right  in  the 
end ;  and  the  foi-mer  have  never  permanently  injured 
us,  and  have  never  been  succeeded  by  the  providence 
of  God.     Meanwhile  Methodism  has  advanced  in  tri- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  203 

umph.  Tens  of  thousands  have  flocked  to  her  ranks 
almost  yearly,  hundreds  of  thousands  have  gone  up  to 
heaven  from  her  pale,  and  hundreds  of  thousands  are 
on  their  way.  They  have  been  opposed  at  each  step 
of  their  advancement,  but  they  have  pressed  onward. 
In  the  village  and  in  the  city ;  in  the  wigwam  of  the 
savage  and  the  hut  of  the  slave ;  on  the  shores  of  the 
Puritans  and  on  the  banks  of  the  Columbia;  amidst 
the  colds  of  Canada  and  the  savannas  of  Texas,  the 
preachers  of  this  "  despotic  "  system  are  suffering  and 
triumphing.  On  them  and  on  their  fields  God  has 
deigned  the  greatest  outpourings  of  his  Spirit  in  modern 
times ;  and  there  is  but  one  prospect  before  them  if 
they  will  preserve,  unimpaired  by  innovation,  their 
economy  and  doctrines,  and  that  is,  universal  progress. 
Second,  it  will  explain  the  indisposition  of  the  church 
to  change  its  polity,  by  conforming  it  to  the  notions  of 
those  who  clamor  for  what  they  call  a  republican 
church.  There  are  theocratic  traits  of  the  Christian 
church  which  will  not  allow  fully  of  such  a  character. 
The  most  ostensible  department  of  the  church — the 
ministry — is  not  representative.  It  cannot  be  created, 
though  it  should  be  sanctioned,  by  the  people.  God 
alone,  by  the  election  of  his  Spirit,  can  appoint  men  to 
preach ;  and  such  as  he  calls  are  the  divinely  author- 
ized expositors  of  his  truth,  and  administrators  of  evan- 
gelical ordinances  and  discipline.  The  question  of 
religious  liberty  pertains  not  so  much  to  the  church  as 
to  the  state.  Where  the  civil  government  imposes  no 
religious  system,  the  rights  of  conscience  are  guaran- 
tied. Under  its  broad  shelter  men  may  properly  form 
the  most  rigorous  religious  combinations,  provided  they 
can  enter  into  and  retire  from  them  voluntarily. 


204  CHURCH   GOVEKNMENT. 

The  appointing  power  of  the  Methodist  episcopacy 
we  have  shown  to  be  one  of  the  most  essential  features 
of  our  pohty.  When  it  is  abolislietl,  our  itinerancy 
will  become  a  nulhty.  And  yet  this  is  the  peculiarity 
of  our  system  which  is  most  abhorred  by  "  reformers," 
so  called.  And  why  this  hostility  to  it?  Is  not  its 
chief  pressure  on  the  ministry  ?  and  is  it  not  a  creation 
of  the  ministry  itself?  Our  bishops  do  not  usurp  this 
high  prerogative ;  but  the  ministry  itself,  as  we  have 
shown,  maintains  ity  and  appoints  the  bishops  to  bear  it. 
The  ministry  can  repeal  it  if  it  pleases.  AVhy,  then,  this 
outcry  against  an  authority  which  is  voluntarily  sus- 
tained by  those  who  suffer  its  chief  inconveniences  ?  Is 
it  said  that  "  such  a  prerogative  involves  undue  power  ? 
it  is  inconsistent  with  the  republican  principles  of  the 
country  ?"  &c.  We  have  shown  that  it  is  not  more  so  than 
some  usages  which  the  civil  policy  of  our  country  cre- 
ates and  sanctions.  The  Methodist  community  are  as 
true  to  their  country  as  any  other  sect ;  but  they  have 
found  their  religious  economy  peculiarly  successful; 
it  was  not  devised,  but  grew  up  providentially;  and, 
being  assured  of  the  protection  of  their  individual  rights 
by  the  civil  law,  they  have  not  deemed  it  wise  to  risk 
its  efficiency  by  attempting  to  adjust  it  to  the  relative 
rights  of  its  different  subjects,  but  consent  to  a  mutual 
sacrifice  for  the  common  good.  Their  only  object  be- 
ing "  the  spread  of  holiness,"  their  only  inquiry  is.  How 
shall  we  most  effectually  accomplish  it  ? 

Third,  the  influence  of  thisjim/Ie  impression  will  he 
powerful.  Let  it  be  the  universal  idea  of  the  church 
tliat  we  may  lead  on  the  aggi'cssive  movements  of 
Christianity,  and  our  zeal  will  be  redoubled.  Hereto- 
fore we  have  been  surprised  at  our  own  success,  with- 


CHURCH  GOVERNMENT.  205 

out  a  definit*  inference  of  its  future  results.  We  have 
exclaimed,  "  What  hath  God  wrought !"  and  wondered 
whereunto  it  would  tend.  Standing  now  far  in  the 
front  of  the  rehgious  bodies  of  this  great  nation,  and 
prominent  in  the  van  of  those  of  Europe,  we  ought  to 
project  plans  for  the  future ;  and  they  should  be  sub- 
lime ones,  befitting  the  gospel,  and  comprehensive  as 
our  lost  world.  Our  zeal  should  look  forward  to  the 
time  when  Methodist  itinerants  shall  traverse  the  wilds 
of  Africa  and  the  deserts  of  Tartary,  and  shout  for  joy 
along  the  Andes  and  the  Himmalayah.  But  this  is 
enthusiasm — yes,  it  is ;  yet  it  does  not  transcend  the  ^ 
power  or  the  promise  of  God.  It  is  the  enthusiasm 
that  inflamed  the  prophets,  and  bled  on  the  cross  for 
our  redemption;  and  it  must  yet  tlirill  through  the 
church  before  it  will  put  on  its  fuU  energy.  Hereto- 
fore it  has  moved  by  occasional  impulses.  Ever  and 
anon  a  glory,  as  of  the  latter  day,  has  dawned  upon  it, 
but  been  followed  by  darkness ;  but  now  good  men  are 
looking  at  the  signs  of  the  moral  heavens  with  new 
eagerness  and  hope.  In  all  lands  great  and  effectual 
doors  are  opening.  New  means  of  spiritual  warfare 
are  constantly  arising.  A  special  providence  seems  to 
control  the  course  of  civil  events.  The  poHtical  arm 
of  antichrist  at  least  is  broken,  and  the  crescent  of  the 
false  prophet  but  gleams  on  the  horizon.  The  idea  is 
becoming  general  in  the  church  that  the  morning  of 
the  latter  day  is  approaching — that  the  final  battle  is  at 
hand.  In  these  circumstances,  how  stands  Methodism — 
one  of  the  largest  corps  of  the  evangelical  host,  disci- 
plined and  hardy  by  a  century  of  conflicts,  possessing 
energies  unequaled  by  any  other  sect,  and  lacking  only 
a  more  definite  conception  of  its  true  capability  to  en- 


20G  CnURCII   GOVEUNMENT. 

able  it  to  send  trembling  among  the  powers  of  dark- 
ness? We  have  a  better  idea  of  the  nature  of  our  mis- 
sion than  of  its  extent.  We  work  well  at  the  posts 
which  have  fallen  to  us,  but  show  a  culpable  hesitancy 
in  assuming  our  true  position.  Denominations  of  much 
less  strength  are  before  us  in  their  efforts  for  education, 
missions,  &c.,  and  their  influence  on  the  public  mind. 
Being  first  in  numerical  strength,  it  devolves  upon  us 
to  be  first  in  all  Christian  efforts ;  but  we  are  not  yet 
second.  Our  missionary  contributions  are  an  example : 
our  present  income  would  be  about  quadrupled  by  each 
member  paying  only  a  cent  a  week.  Let  the  idea  of 
our  special  mission  be  generally  received,  and  it  will 
arouse  us  from  this  apathy ;  and,  when  once  awakened, 
we  shall  find  our  resources  a  hundred-fold  greater  than 
we  have  apprehended  them  to  be.  O  that  the  young 
generation  of  Methodists,  to  whom  is  committed  the 
future,  may  understand  their  "  high  caUing,"  and  "  ac- 
quit themselves  like  men !"  Let  them  be  admonished 
that  theirs  will  be  a  position  of  rare  responsibility,  and, 
if  faithfully  sustained,  as  glorious  in  honor  and  reward. 


THE  END. 


-i 


